Part of this stems from Peter Hall's autobiography in which he talks about the development of the RSC and why it was so successful. No one wanted him to do The Homecoming, but he felt passionate about it, so Peter Brooks, Michel St Denis, John Barton and Trevor Nunn backed him up--contrary to their personal beliefs. They believed in Peter Hall and his art--not in making commercial, easy-to-swallow art or dictating a season to a man they trusted artistically and intellectually. It ended up being a huge artistic success, even though it ruffled many feathers and most of the RSC governors hated the show.

I think our theatres are best when they ae reflections of the artistic, imaginative and intellectual qualities of the individuals that are the company. While theatre is a collaborative effort, it is rarely a democracy. The opinions of the group must be held in the heart of all with special care and consideration, but when it comes down to it, decisions have to be made, plays must be chosen. I am interestd in seeing seasons and shows that reflect the artists passions and desires. In a permenant company with a permenant space this would without a doubt become thematic and recognizeable over time. But I think the idea is to do those things which touch your heart and then look back and see how that affected your choices. The labeling comes after the product.

Rebellion for rebellion's sake is just as sheeplike as compliance and docility. Critical thinking, original thinking, personal thinking, thinking from your center -- that is what makes you you. Our society tries to make you comply with its ideas about what people "should be," and people become frustrated because they don't feel like the can "fit in" and still be true to themselves. So they end up hating themselves. I think you should be trying to be who you are as completely as possible. I agree with you about civility -- it has been lost, and needs to be regained. Questioning ideas is not about a lack of civility. Socrates was always very civil while he questioned everything and everybody. AND he had a wicked sense of humor!

From The Invitation by Oriah Mountain Dreamer:

"It doesn't interest me what you do for a living. I want to know what you ache for, and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart's longing.

It doesn't interest me how old you are. I want to know if you ill risk looking like a fool for love, for your dream, for the adventure of being alive.

"It doesn't interest me what planets are squaring your moon. I want to know if you have touched the center of your own sorrow, if you have been opened by life's betrayals or have become shriveled and closed from fear of further pain. I want to know if you can sit with pain, mine or your own, without moving to hide it or fade it or fix it.

I want to know if you can be with joy, mine or your own, if you can dance with wildness and let the ecstasy fill you to the tips of your fingers and toes without cautioning us to be careful, to be realistic, to remember the limitations of being human.

It doesn't interest me if the story you are telling me is true. I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to yourself; if you can bear the accusation of betrayal and no betray your own soul; if you can be faithless and therefore trustworthy.

I want to know if you can see beauty, even when it's not pretty, every day, and if you can source your own life from its presence.

I want to know if you can live with failure, yours and mine, and still stand on the edge of the lake and shout to the silver of the full mooon, 'Yes!'

It doesn't interest me to know where you live or how much money you have. I want to know if you can get up, after the night of grief and despair, weary and bruised to the bone, and do what needs to be done to feed the children.

It doesn't interest me who you know or ho you came to be here. I want to know if you ill stand in the center of the fire with me and not shrink back.

It doesn't interest me where or what or with whom you have studied. I want to know what sustains you, from the inside, when all else falls away.

I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments."

What do I look for in a student?

· Did they ever refuse to do an assignment because it was “insulting to their intelligence”? They’re in.
· Did they ever question an administrator about the way resources were distributed in the school? They’re in.
· Did they indicate that one of the main reasons they are getting a college education is so they can “get a better job and make more money”? They’re out.
· Were they ever elected to student government, or Prom or Homecoming committees? They’re out.
· Did they ever participate in a political protest? They’re in.
· Did they ever accept “because that’s just the way it is” as an answer to anything? They’re out.
· Were they ever seen as a disciplinary problem, despite their intelligence? They’re in.
· Did they score high on the SAT but low in GPA? They’re in.
· Did they score high on one part of the SAT but low on another? They’re in.
· Did they ever take an SAT prep course? They’re out.
· Do they have a respect for authority? They’re out.
· Do they say something outrageous in their application essay? They’re in.
· When they attend orientation and the student helper chirps that, “while what happens in the classroom is important, it is what happens outside of class that is really what school is about,” do they get angry? They’re in.
· Do they carry a book with them in case they have some downtime? They’re in.

Hey! We made the Fresh Blogs list on Blogger at 8:30 AM today! Now we're on the map!

You've hit it on the head, Brian -- substitute theatre for reading, and see where the discussion leads. Kate often has to remind us DDers about theatre and "having fun." This quotation says that there are books that serve different purposes, including having fun. Obviously, so does theatre. Yet I know that I very frequently am perceived as attacking "having fun" theatre by speaking for other types of theatre (say, more cerebral theatre). Is Quindlen taking a strong stand on a "duh" issue? Do "having fun" books or plays really need defense? Or does more cerebral theatre need defense more? Should there be a balance? Should there be a balance within a theatre season (the Danny Newman "Subscribe Now" philosophy that has been the foundation of the regional theatre movement)? Or within a town's theatre scene? Or a nation's? If a theatre person prefers one type to another, is he dissing the one he is rejecting by the very act of preferring the other?

Why might this question be important? Let's say you have a theatre of your own. Do you (A) try to create a balanced season, with a little comedy for part of your audience, a little tragedy for another, a little traditional theatre for yet another, and an experimental piece for another? or do you (B) develop brand recognition as a theatre known for a particular kind of play, and create an audience of people who prefer that particular brand? Think this through carefully: should Asheville Community Theatre do Angels in America; should NC Stage do South Pacific?

Also, should we be more generous about theatres that do types of plays we aren't interested in ourselves?

Not a slave to foolish consistency, I offer for discussion a quotation from Anna Quindlen's wonderful little book, How Reading Changed My Life:

"So what does it mean, that Peyton Place by Grace Metalious sold more copies than Sanctuary by William Faulkner? It means that reading has as many functions as the human body, and that not all of them are cerebral. One is mere entertainment, the pleasurable whiling away of time; another is more important, not intellectual, but serious just the same. 'She had learned something comforting,' Roald Dahl wrote in Matilda of his ever-reading protagonist, 'that we are not alone.' And if readers use words and stories as much, or more, to lessen human isolation as to expand human knowledge, is that somehow unworthy, invalid, and unimportant?"

One more thing: Kate, I think you and I should resist with all our hearts the temptation to comment on Brian's connection of Elia Kazan and courage... And Brian, I think you should resist responding to this one-sentence comment with a multi-paragraph defense of Kazan. I admire Nietzsche, for God's sake, we none of us are perfect.

By the way, Kate, you're not a garden variety anything.

After Equus, I had so many film offers that I decided maybe I ought to consider a career change. The Home Acting Course was my first step toward that. Do you think I wasted my money?

Actually, it was advertised at the top of our blog, so I took a look...

I think everyone in this group has gotten "practical" at one time or another, this Big Dreamer included. It is hard not to -- and it isn't a bad trait to have, when all is said and done: things have to get done, not just dreamed about. The problem occurs when the Practical substitutes for the Dream -- the Practical rarely inspires joy; it is a means, not an end. Finding one's dream is no easy deal -- it is like choosing a major, which most students change four times during their college career. (Partially, this is because people think that choosing a major means that is what you want to do for a job, as opposed to the major being a way of looking at the world and learning about it prior to getting a job.) Look at me: I started out as a comic actor dreaming of Broadway, then I decided to direct, then I wanted my own theatre. Finally, when I was 30 years old, I won the National Criticism Competition, and while I was at the O'Neill Center I was hanging out with a group of Yale profs and dramaturgs talking about Brecht when I went, "Hey! This is what I want to do! Talk about ideas with smart people!" And so an academic was born.

Having heroes to emulate, as Brian says, can help you keep faith when the going gets tough. They change according to what is happening in your life. Lately, my heroes have been Ralph Waldo Emerson, Socrates, Earl Shorris, and Friederich Nietzsche (of all people). No theatre people in that group, which probably says something about me right now. It is also nice to have somebody that is a friend who brings out the best in you, and that you can talk to. DD is that for me; so is my co-author, Cal Pritner; so is my wife.

I've been reading a lot of philosophy lately, which probably shows in these rather windy posts. Insert fart noises as needed to keep it real.

John,
Of course, you are right -- this is a very determined group. But I occasionally hear the Voice of Practicality drowning out the dream...

Scott

OK, I have to admit that this makes me curious:

http://www.homeactingcourse.com/

If stage management gives you that sort of feeling (and I know people for whom it does), then that is what you should do. But it seems to me you should never do it for any other reason.

Except for a comp, of course. ;-)

John,
Yes, Santiago in The Alchemist (ever since Kate taught me how to do italics, I can't stop) ends up finding his treasure where he began. When he realizes this, and asks the wind why he didn't tell him that in the first place, the Wind replies something like, "If I had, you wouldn't have seen the Pyramids. They're beautiful, aren't they?" In other words, the treasure may not be the gold, but rather the journey itself. I think this connects to John's idea that one should simply live one's life. He is right, it seems to me: one should not become entangled in one's reflectiveness, which I interpret as we shouldn't become paralyzed into inaction by eternal reflection. On the other hand (as Tevye says), Santiago has a goal toward which he moves -- he has listened to his heart, paid attention to the signs, and learned things as he goes. He is shown several examples of people who have not followed their journeys: the Crystal Merchant, who is afraid change will cause him discomfort, and who fears to follow his dream because it may end up not a wonderful as he imagines it, and if he attains his dream he'll have nothing to live for; the Baker, who decides against pursuing his dream until he has enough financial security to do it without risk (and so he never goes). He is constantly reflecting on the lives of his sheep, who seem happy simply to eat and sleep and have every day the same as every other day.

It seems to me that The Alchemist (ital again -- oh, I love it) has a very clear message, and one that I agree with wholeheartedly: listen to your heart and follow your dream wherever it leads you. The journey may be more important than the dream. What I have been trying to do with you all is get you to listen to your heart and figure out what your dream is, rather than listening to the Status Quo and letting the Way Things Are Now to determine what your dreams are. The most depressing thing is to hear a young person sigh and say, "Well, that's just the way it is."

Scott

Brian,
Spontaneity is vastly overrated. So now you know that you aren't a professional gambler -- that's something!

Scott

Dear Everybody, but Especially Kate and Brian,
It seems that I have gone too far again, and offended people. Sometimes I feel like the guy in Of Mice and Men who loves rabbits so much that he pets them to death. I love talking about ideas that much, and sometimes I have the same effect.

So Brian: I was really only kidding about your Vegas trip, and a little envious at your ability to do it. And even more envious that you saw the Circue du Soleil, since I heard "O" discussed on NPR a few days ago. I didn't actually think it made you not serious about theatre.

The point I have been trying to make with my other posts is this: I think that one should devote one's life to something that, at least occasionally, fills your heart with joy and gives your life meaning. For the people involved with The Sound of Music, it sounds as if musicals do that for them, and so there is great meaning and wonder in their creative lives. Where I have problems is when people make calculated decisions based, not on love, but on a sense of "The Market." Because that work is a lie, and that central lie shows through the work itself. If you see people who truly love farce (and I bow to nobody in my love of physical comedy and the work of people like Laurel and Hardy), it is a thing of beauty -- their love shines through. But when people do, say, Neil Simon simply because they think it will be a money-maker, they mar the wonder of his work, and that makes me angry. If stage management gives you that sort of feeling (and I know people for whom it does), then that is what you should do. But it seems to me you should never do it for any other reason.

What I am talking about here is love. If you make your life in the arts, you should love what you do, and do what you love. There isn't enough money in it to justify it otherwise, and ultimately your lack of love shows through the work. I am not trying to create a universal idea of value -- Shepard good, Simon bad, or some such thing. What I am saying is that we should try not to let "The Market" dictate our actions, but rather follow our heart, no matter if that means having to make money some other way in order to support your art. The novel I gave Brian as a graduation present, "The Alchemist," calls this your Personal Legend, and describes how, when you are following your Personal Legend, the universe will help you, even when it seems as if you have lost your way. It takes faith to follow your Personal Legend, but I truly believe it is the best way to live. The Sound of Music is somebody's Personal Legend. If it is yours, pursue it with all your heart; if it isn't yours, then get out of the way so that the person for whom it is their Personal Legend can follow it.

As young people, you all are trying to get a grip on what your Personal Legend really is -- what makes your heart sing? I think that is what Brian was writing. I am further along because I am older, and because I have the great joy of being able to live my Personal Legend: teaching. My journey continues, with many unexpected turns and discoveries, but for the most part my heart sings when I get an opportunity to be with young people talking about drama, art, and ideas. What I am trying to urge you to do is listen to your heart, and try to block out the other voices -- the voices of The Market, or the Voice of Materialism, or the Voice of Caution -- until you can hear even a little bit what your heart is telling you. I think if you do that, you will have few regrets when you are on your deathbed. You may not have much money, but you will have something much, much better: a life devoted to love, and the experiences that go along with that.

Scott

I'm afraid I've never been able to buy into that Hobbesian-social Darwinism-we'll-kill-anybody-that-gets-in-our-way view of human nature. When it comes to survival issues, sure, I suppose (although even then not always), but we're not talking about survival. We're talking about the creation of something of value, and that's different. Cooperation is possible. America may have destroyed the idea of community, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Now, if the only way to make art your job is to abandon the reason that art seems to be worthwhile (for me), then to hell with it as a job. I can make a lot more money, with a lot better hours, doing something else. Now, granted, I chose teaching not because I didn't like doing theatre professionally, but rather because I discovered I liked teaching better than doing shows, so my perspective may be warped. But if I hadn't felt that way, by now I probably would have abandoned "theatre as a job" for "a job with theatre on my own terms," because I simply couldn't take it. Doing theatre for a living is less important than doing the kind of theatre I can feel good about. If I found myself feeling like I had hit the jackpot because I had gotten the opportunity to direct the national tour of "The Sound of Music," I would put a bullet in my brain. And that's what doing theatre as a job can lead to.
The key here, it seems to me, is to understand what makes you feel as if your work and life has meaning. For me, Neil Simon is terrific at what he does, but I couldn't devote my career to his work and feel good about life. That's me. Your mileage may vary. What gets me going is feeling as if I am making somebody's life better. So I teach in a prison, I try to direct plays that illuminate and make sense out of life in some way (and some Neil Simon plays do this, by the way), and I teach people to have the courage to live their values and not the values passed on to them by society. One of the temptations that the Buddha had to overcome before he became the Buddha was the idea of social duty -- the belief that you have to live up to society's ideas of what you ought to do, that you have to "fit in." I think that is the straightest highway there is to unhappiness, frustration, and meaninglessness.
So I question, I reflect, and I look for alternatives. That's what I do. What do you do?

Scott

Or not...

Scott

I'm not necessarily saying living together. What I am saying is that the relationship is more than one of "my job." That the theatre would be part of a larger web of relationships. Yes, Kate, people can be jerks -- and if they are, they're jerks no matter whether you're living together or working together. Jerks are jerks, and perhaps one should make sure that jerks aren't included in a particular artistic community. It seems to me that we have based the making of theatre on Henry Ford's model of making automobiles, which involves a division of labor, and very little interaction between workers (As the song from the musical "Working" goes, "It's me and my machine for the rest of the morning, for the rest of the afternoon, for the rest of my life"); no matter what the product being made, the process is the same. That may or may not be the best way to make a car, but I'm pretty certain it isn't the way to make a work of art.

And perhaps that is what is being lost in all this talk about "selling" and "buying" and "markets" -- theatre is art. Not another product like soap. Art. If we think of it like a product, then why bother (because it's "fun"???? is it really that damn much fun?)-- there are more cost-efficient products to make that will provide us with a lot more money. When is it that we shift our focus from economics to the art? When is it that art becomes the primary focus, not what gets traded away when the rubber hits the road? Is the number one value of art that it puts food in your mouth?

And, John, why is "variety" a good thing? Did Michelangelo alternate working on the the Sistine Chapel with drawing advertisements for the local newspaper? The Church paid him to create art -- something that would lift the souls of worshippers. And as a result, he painted inspiring works. Wouldn't artists be better if they focused, and stopped pandering to the marketplace?

And yes, Death is "mildly" thought provoking. "Mildly" being the operative word. Philosophy lite. What about creating art that is really thought provoking. Something that might enrich people's lives. Something that might help people to make sense out of this chaotic life, not just provide a way of killing a couple hours? We have bought the idea that such art won't sell, which is simply nonsense. It is the market making sure that people don't ask questions that might make them see that buying more stuff won't make them happy.

Scott

"...the money to pay artists full time as well as paying for materials, etc. I'm envisioning a theatre outside of capitalism. Tickets that real human beings with jobs can afford, artists paid a wage they can live on dependent on the quality of their work instead of the popularity of their work. "

Well, I think we need to start envisioning theatre inside capitalism, since that is where we are, and since the fall of communism and socialism, that is where most of the world is. I would contend that, given the economics of theatre, the goal of paying artists a livable wage leads to seasons filled with "Greater Tuna" and "Greater Tuna Christmas." I am starting to think that the only way theatre is going to regain any dignity, not to mention integrity, is through the creation of collectives that do not only theatre, but also provide communal resources and living structures. What is most important is freedom -- freedom from economic coercion, freedom to focus, freedom to follow one's ideas. That means a new way of living that breaks out of the capitalist, middle-class existence reliant on "things," and instead the creation of an community of artists creating a life together that includes their art. I suppose this sounds like hippie-dom, but it need not be whacked. It might just be a reclaiming of an old communitarian tradition.

Scott

"...the money to pay artists full time as well as paying for materials, etc. I'm envisioning a theatre outside of capitalism. Tickets that real human beings with jobs can afford, artists paid a wage they can live on dependent on the quality of their work instead of the popularity of their work. "

because, dammit, that sounds like my kind o' theatre!

pipe dream, huh? that sounds like a challenge. let me cogitate on it a bit...

Kate and John -- I am assuming that when you use the term "non-profit," what you mean is unpaid, right? Because all of the professional repertory theatres are non-profit, but everybody gets paid union wages.
Jess brings up a good point, though: if you must work another job, you don't have as much time to devote to your theatre work. On the other hand, if you aren't relying on your theatre work to put food in your mouth and a roof over your head, you can take greater risks and stick more closely to your artistic vision and values. Both involve trade-offs. I guess it depends on which trade-off you want to make.

Welcome, John! Glad to have you on board!

Scott

"To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost, and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato and Milton is that they set naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men, but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty."
------ Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

I struggle with this quotation. On the one hand, I passionately believe that education should help a person develop his own voice, his own "genius." On the other, I also believe one's own voice needs to be supported by the voice of our forefathers in order to resonate with any power. Emerson seems to me to be saying that you cannot find your genius by echoing the ideas of the past, not that the ideas of the past are not needed; that one must think for oneself, but also one must think.

Scott

'Whatever and education is, it should make you a unique individual, not a conformist; it should furnish you with an original spirit with which to tackle the big challenges; it should allow you to find values which will be your road map through life; it should make you spiritually rich, a person who loves whatever you are doing, wherever you are, whomever you are with; it should teach you what is important: how to live and how to die."
--John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down (p 68)

Do you agree with this statement? If so, how might we move toward its realization?

Scott

yeah! death to the infidels! let true art reign supreme. how dare you have fun, Brian!

how could one possibly go about changing the standards by which UNCA admits students? Who would you investigate?

I think more emphasis should be placed on individual interviews between perspectives and faculty. wouldn't it be easy to tell in a sixty minute interview whether or not the student has more than a rudimentary intellectual capacity and does more than simply regurgitate facts?

on the other hand - I know some excellent critical thinkers who prefer the "tell me specifically what I need to learn, give me a lecture" approach. Yet these successes seem to pale in comparison to the # of students that use the current model to disengage as much as possible.

K8 wrote:
Seems to me the only way to do that is to turn theatre into a not-for-profit endeavor. If it continues to be something people do "to make a living", people are going to continue to be meat at auditions. For theatre to be anything other than a business, it would have to be entirely funded with no strings attached, making artists independent of the box office.
The question is...does this produce better theatre, worse theatre, more theatre, less theatre or just lazy theatre?

I think we've had this discussion several times before. Yet, since it is vital that all of us (who don't have trust funds or private benefactors) be able to pay our bills, I don't agree that the only way to "de-corporatize" is by making all theatre non-profit. There is not enough time in the day/week/month/year to hold a full time "normal" job that pays the bills and still be able to engage fully in the artistic development of the theatre. So. I accept that it is proper to pay artists for their work. What I believe is necessary is a change in artistic temperment. To engeage in meaningful theatre I must not strike out on this venture as if I were solely responsible for finding a string of jobs that will pay my rent. Instead, my time would be better spent developing theatre with a group of artists that are committed to working together over a period of time with specific artistic goals. If this is managed properly, it could be a profitable (although perhaps not lucrative) venture. Also, the focus can be changed from perpetuating "The Biz" to accomplishing ground breaking theatre in a safe, creative and created environment.

Hmmm.....

Let's see... Too much going on to go to a serious theatre conference in New York, but is able to wing off to Las Vegas for "The Sound of Music" and some gambling... I don't know about you guys, but I think this is cause for being drummed out of the Dead Dramatists. (Or at the very least, it is cause for loud hooting when he starts talking passionately about high art.)

Scott

Brian,
The standardized testing approach to education is an abomination, and needs to be fought with every fiber of our being. It is further evidence of the tendency to make people compliant, not thinking citizens with critical thinking abilities. As you say, it makes teachers likely to teach to the test. What gets lost? Actual thinking. BY the way, there is talk of a similar test for college students as well.
Universities enforce this tendency toward compliance as a sign of being educated by choosing students according to GPAs and class ratings. Be honest -- how do you get good grades in high school? Critical thinking? INdependent ideas? No, by being compliant enough to turn in your idiotic homework on time, and in a form that echoes the teacher's viewpoint as much as possible. Education for parrots. And the students who do best at this are the ones UNCA wants. Then they get here, and it is time to have a discussion about values and ideas, and they have no idea how to participate. They would rather you lecture, so they can write what you say in their notebooks and underline anything that gets written on the board. I am very seriously considering leading an investigation of how we admit students at UNCA.

Scott

Kate,
I know exactly what you mean about local control. The home-schoolers have picked up Gatto big-time. I'm not sure if I trust individuals or corporations...

Kate, I want to know how you manage to do italics for your posts, and change font colors. I want to use italics too!

By the way, it is John Taylor Gatto, not Gatti. Gatti was a gangster; Gatto uses an intellectual machine gun.

Take a look at this website devoted to John Taylor Gatti. I am giving you the URL for the prologue to his book "The Underground History of American Education." I have ordered a couple of his books through interlibrary loan, because I can't quite decide if I think this guy is on the money, or a crackpot. I guess I can't quite figure out his ideology -- there are part that seem libertarian, yet his anti-corporate stance seems to belie this. He slaughters a few sacred cows -- John Dewey, for instance, who I always thought was about individual intellectual freedom; the University of Chicago and Columbia Teachers College, who also seem as if they have an admirable background -- that makes me ask questions. What do you think?

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue.htm

A quotation from John Taylor Gatti, a two-time teacher of the year in New York who quit teaching and has written several books about education: ""We have to radically decentralize government corporate schooling, return the power of designing and assessing programs to the local level, and ensure that every form of training for the young aims at producing independent, self-reliant minds, good characters, and individuals who get fighting mad when called a "human resource" and told their main function is to be part of the work force.”


Hear! Hear! And this need applies to theatre as well, it seems to me. I want people to get fighting mad when they are told they should think of themselves as "meat" when they go to an audition, or when they are prepared to be part of "The Biz." The theatre is being corporatized.

Brian,
It is interesting how inter-connected all this is. St. John's is an outgrowth of the University of Chicgao's Great Books general education program (the Great Books library is an outgrowth). Who helped Robert Hutchens, the President of U of Chicago, to develop this? Mortimer Adler, author of "How to Read a Book" and "The Paideia Proposal." The Paideia Program, which focuses on K-12 education, feeds the Great Books Foundation.
I have always admired the St. Johns approach, and am hoping to take a 3-day training course on conducting seminars next summer at the New Mexico St. John's campus. By the way, for those of you who were in Arts and Ideas this spring, Peter Pesic, the pianist who presented the Dorr Lecture, is a faculty member at St. John's in New Mexico, and he was strongly pushing for changing Arts and Ideas into something more St. Johnsian. My Harlem Renaissance version of Arts and Ideas this summer is partly based on this approach.
Anyway, the parts of the St. John's website that intrigue me:

"With a faculty-student ratio of 1 to 8, class size ranges from a handful in tutorials to 18 or 20 in seminars and laboratories, and the entire student body for one weekly lecture. All classes are discussion classes, so that the students participate directly and actively in their own education. Final examinations are oral and individual. Students' tutors, as members of the faculty are called, meet with them twice a year in conferences to evaluate their intellectual performance in their presence and with their help."

This is an interesting mix. All classes are discussion classes, except one mass lecture FOLLOWED BY EXTENSIVE Q & A. So the Humanities/Arts 310 model, but with a Q & A session following. I like the idea of individual oral exams, which seems a better means of evaluation than a paper or mass exam. I think this is helped by the fact that there are not ABCDF grades at St. John's, if I'm not mistaken. I think everything is Pass/Fail.

The seminars are what I am trying to do in my classes, but I am still trying to strengthen an important part of them: making sure that every opinion is supported by evidence, and keeping the discussion focused on defining the issues. Here is the description: "One tutor begins the seminar with a question on the assigned reading, a question to which he or she may have no answer; thereafter the tutors do more listening than talking. The seminar presupposes that students are willing to submit their opinions to the scrutiny of their colleagues. It requires that everyone's opinion be heard and explored and that every opinion be supported by argument and evidence. The role of the tutors is not to give information nor to provide the "right" opinion or interpretation. It is to guide the discussion, keep it moving, define the issues, raise objections, and help the students in every way possible to understand the issues, the author, and themselves. If the tutors, as they may, take a definite stand and enter the argument, they can expect no special consideration, for reason is the only recognized authority. In the main, the aims are to ascertain how things are, not how things were; to develop the students' powers of reason, understanding, and communication; and to help them arrive at rational opinions of their own." I admire these stated aims.

Scott

Kate -- What?!!! CHANGE THE SYLLABUS??????

I know the beer and pizza thing is a joke, but there is something there as well: I wish the there could be food and drink for discussions. There is something civilized, and something that promotes dialogue, about eating and talking.

Scott

regular discussions? bleah. i insist on decaf...

I think two weeks for a play is good - provided the discussion merits the extra time. this will be particular to the abilities of the class to contribute to discussion.

I alos would encourage anything that requires the students to read the whole play.

Folks -- I know I am dominating the blog by focusing everything on pedagogy, but it is something I am really working on right now, and I truly appreciate having your insights as students. I promise to return you to your regularly scheduled discussions shortly.

Scott

I have been doing some research and thinking about leading discussions. There are several different approaches, and I am starting to come to the conclusion that some sort of synthesis may be the best way to go, as opposed to choosing one over the other. So here are my current thoughts.

Let's use a MWF class as an illustration. It seems to me that the first day of a new play (perhaps the class PRECEDING the day the play is due to be read), I should do a lecture about the playwright, the theatrical and historical context, etc. This puts the play in some sort of a context. So let's say I do that Friday, then the play is due on Monday.

On Monday, I would take a Great Books Foundation approach to the play. The Great Books Foundation teaches an approach to seminars that is based on the work of Mortimer Adler (who wrote "How to Read a Book" and "The Paideia Proposal"). These seminars focus on "interpretive" questions -- i.e., everything is about the play, and all questions must be answered citing evidence from the play. So, if we were reading "Hamlet," I might ask something like, "is Hamlet really mad, or is he feigning madness?" And if Brian answered, "feigning," then I would ask "Is there something IN THE PLAY that makes you say that?" So the discussion would be completely focused on interpreting the actions of the play.

On Wednesday, we would then have a more free-form discussion of issues raised by the play. The general starting point would be the play, and we would use the play for illustrations, but constant reference to the script would not be necessary. Again, if we were discussing "Hamlet," we might talk about whether Hamlet is justified in taking matters into his own hands in killing Claudius, or whether a son is still obliged to revenge wrongs done to his family. These are more evaluative questions that quickly become philosophical questions about values and ethics.

The idea of this process is that the student gets some preliminary insights that might help in understanding the play when he reads it for the first time, and then must focus entirely on the play itself (this also undermines the Spark Notes approach to class preparation, since participation in the class would require being able to dig out details from the text in order to support your ideas), and only then can the discussion address larger issues.

What do you think of this model? Think it might work?

Also, do you think a week is enough time to cover a play? Too much? Too little?

Scott

Right. And the trick is to involve those who purport to "hate" the play in exactly what you are talking about -- why is this the case?
I don't think it is necessarily bad to discuss the issue of the play in dpth. The idea, I guess, is to make sure that it is done within the context of the play itself.
We all think alot about a myriad of subjects - the ones that get us riled up are these "issues" That's not a bad thing - it's just that in class it tends to lead us to more unstructured discussions.
Scott seems to have some ideas n leading discussions for the upcoming semester - inclasses that i don't think any of us are taking. I'd still find it informative to have him post those discussion ideas here for our own scrutiny and comment...

Playscript - Hamlet, good discussion. Good Woman, not so much.

Modern - Doll's House, Miss Julie - good! Endgame (that's the Beckett we read, right?) - no way.

maybe realism is something to which folks tend to relate. I agree with Brian. First comments that start, "I hated this play" or "I didn't get it" tend to neuter the conversation before it starts. All of a sudden you are discussing whether the play isworth talking about instead of conversing about the play.

I think one of the challenges of using discussion in class is keeping it focused, and productive. It can easily become a "bull session." I think that sometimes my classes tip over into that area, and I have been doing a lot of studying this summer to learn how to make them work better.

Going back to my question: what makes a text a good one for discussion? For instance, can any of you think of a play that was particularly good for discussion, and one that was not? Maybe we can glean some characteristics by comparing them.

Scott

One of the advantages that I've experienced at UNCA is the ability for most classes to be conversation oriented. Only a handful of professors that I've had actually use lectures as the main tool for instruction. Thus, the classes I've taken have served as excellent vehicles for my own educational process. Honestly, I'd be infavor of even more seminar style classes, where the students are responsible for gleaning "facts" through readings and research and then classtime is spent in dialogue. Maybe I'll get more of this at the graduate level.

Diff. topic: I will be directing Harold Pinter's "The Dumbwaiter" and "The Lover" as part of an undergraduate research project this fall focusing on directing techniques developed through analysis of the work of Peter Hall. The performances will be Oct. 16-19 at the North Carolina Stage Company's theatre in downtown Asheville. Both of these things are certain -- I just wanted to let you guys know before the rest of the department is informed. Auditions will be at the end of the first full week of school, rehearsals to start as soon after Sept 1 as possible.

Kate - would you still be willing to serve as SM for this production? The work load will be considerably less than that which I anticipated for Trojan Women -- for instance there will be four actors instead of fourteen, no musical numbers, few light and sound cues. However, if your focus this fall is going to be generating as many writing samples as possible for grad school, then I will totally understand and encourage your decision. Let me know -- either in this forum, or at oldphort@yahoo.com.

I would love to get DDS's input on these plays. Read them and let me know what you think they are about--they are both relatively short, but I think there is quite a bit of thematic commonality between the two... (is that a word? commonality?)

oh yeah - as with everything, it depends on what kind of beer and who made the pizza...

Kate said: "Skills? Information? Self-Knowledge? The bajillion other things you squeezed on that one little line?: Yes. Includes all of that and more. Everything that adds to your experience, your knowledge, your way of thinking...all of that contributes to personal growth in some way."

OK, so this pretty much says that the act of living contributes to personal growth. If this is true, do we need formal education at all? If so, what can formal education provide that might be unique?

Kate then goes on: " The kind of personal growth I think we frequently fail to achieve is intellectual and philosophical growth. We stop at the things that are easy to learn, the lessons that sit right in front of our faces or, more likely, bite us on the ass. However, I think a lot of the more important PG comes from reading, studying, and most importantly, talking to people. Having real live conversations about things that matter more than beer and pizza. Just have three people read the same book or watch the same movie or play with some sort of interesting aspect, then sit 'em down to discuss it. I don't think it's even got to be terribly highbrow--just something that's got something worth talking about in it."

Perhaps this is the role of formal education? If we follow this idea, then conversation should be the main mode of education. However, sometimes this conversation is ABOUT a common stimulus: a book, a play, a movie, an essay. So what makes a book, play, movie, or essay a good candidate for a discussion?

Also, is it true that sometimes the conversation simply grows from a question or topic without another common stimulus?

P.S. What could possibly matter more than beer and pizza?

What do you mean by "personal growth"? And is there a goal to such personal growth? Do you ever get personally growed up? Does personal growth include skills? Information? Is it about self-knowledge? Understanding of the world? Both? How does a focus on personal growth differ from other types of activity? For instance, isn't the School for the Arts focused on the personal growth of its students? Doesn't personal growth just naturally happen as a result of living?

I'm on my way out the door - but I aver that the issue is wih American society and the way schools try to act as "adult prep". The biggest knock on college by those not in it (or out of it having completed their course of study) is that often they cannot get a well-paying job with their little degree in their hot little hand.

So it falls to the small cells of people to change the reality of the situation for themselves. I like the people I interact with intellectually. (ya'll) how do we set goals for our group -- with individual growth as the benchmark?

It really was a compliment, Kate -- and I think the bluster is part of the process. Like the sand that leads to a pearl.

Scott

That's one of the reasons I like that you are a DDSer, Kate -- in among the impatient bluster, you very often cut to the center of a matter. So I am going to cut the center of your post out and put it here for discussion:

"You know the problem I think we're running into? We don't have a problem with our department. We have a problem with the entire collegiate educational system. Hell, we have a problem with all of American culture. We've got a society of Get a Job, Accumulate Wealth, Make Something Of Yourself, and all the Mission Statements in the world aren't changing that. At the risk of picking up Brian's melodrama, I think that if we really want to start a grass-roots level reform of our entire country. Create a place where growth as an individual is more important than having string of letters after your name. Make a world where being a decent human being with a mind and imagination that actually get used matters more than getting a grade."

First, what I want to know is whether anyone else agrees with this assessment. What this sounds like to me is the oldest model there is: the Socratic dialogue. Or am I way off the beam?

Scott

Mission of the University of North Carolina at Asheville

The University of North Carolina at Asheville offers a superior liberal arts education for well-prepared students who are committed to learning and personal growth. Its education is liberating, promoting the free and rigorous pursuit of truth, respect for differing points of view and heritage, and an understanding that values play a role in thought and action. Through this education the university aims to develop students of broad perspective who think critically and creatively, communicate effectively, and participate actively in their communities. UNCA is North Carolina's only designated public liberal arts university.

Small by choice, UNCA brings together faculty, students, and staff of diverse cultural backgrounds to interact closely in a supportive community. The university makes excellence in teaching the highest priority for its faculty. It fosters scholarship and creative activities by faculty and students alike.

UNCA provides undergraduate programs in the arts, the humanities, the natural and social sciences, and in selected pre-professional programs that are solidly grounded in the liberal arts. The university seeks to connect the traditional liberal arts fields through interdisciplinary studies and to integrate these areas of inquiry with programs that prepare students for rewarding careers. To enhance and extend the undergraduate programs, UNCA offers an interdisciplinary Master of Liberal Arts.

As a public university, UNCA serves the region and state in ways that complement its educational mission. It encourages students, faculty, and staff to interact with and serve the community, and it shares cultural and educational resources with citizens at all stages of life and learning. The university houses the Asheville Graduate Center, the North Carolina Center for Creative Retirement, and other programs which provide opportunities to citizens for continued learning and public service.

The ultimate aim of the university is to provide students the best possible opportunity to acquire the skills, knowledge, and understanding necessary to pursue their goals, to find meaning in their lives, and to take their places as contributing citizens of a changing society.

*Blowing a whistle* OK! Everybody breathe! While I think the energy and passion that the DDSers bring to a discussion is very stimulating, sometimes I feel as if we are trying to do surgery with a blunt object. Let's try to get past "I'm right! You suck!" to actually trying to reach some sort of understanding of an issue. Otherwise we are just rehashing old arguments. Kate, if Brian really felt that theatre shouldn't be fun, would his directing choices have been two Steve Martin plays and a Woody Allen? Brian, if you didn't feel that learning skills was important, would you have spent so much time actually producing plays, which you claim you learned more from than class? You all really get off on polarizing the argument so that it bears little resemblance to what you really believe. Intellectual pudding wrestling.

So let's try to break this argument down into smaller units. First, we have to separate the terms. The Drama Department is itself educational theatre, not professional theatre. In other words, the primary focus of everything the Drama Department does is student growth (i.e., education), whereas in the professional theatre the focus is on the audience. So if the primary focus of the Drama Department is education, the first thing to ask, it seems to me, is "education for what?" What is the goal? We must be careful, when defining a goal, that the goal will serve as a legitimate way to measure success. For instance, if we say that our goal is to prepare people to go into the professional theatre, then the fact that Ali Tomberlin is applying to law school would not be seen as evidence that we have done our job as a department. Not that Ali would be seen as a failure, but rather when we are demonstrating the quality of our program, we would only focus on those students who went on to work in professional theatre. By saying in our mission statement that our goal is to produce "original, creative, knowledgeable, and caring THEATRE ARTISTS" are we implying this focus? Or should our goal be to produce "original, creative, knowledgeable, and caring PEOPLE" who can apply these skills wherever their lives might take them? Or is there another way to state the goal that would be useful.

P.S. Playscript Analysis is a skills class no less than acting or elements. Any subject that you can put "how to" in front of ("How to analyze a play," "How to direct a play") is a skills class.

Kate,

you know, I think part of what lead me to bring up the idea of universal, human issues was a discussion/argument I overheard between you and Kendra about the same thing earlier this past semester (or was it last fall?) thus, you didn't *lose* - infact, by that standard you served as a catalyst for my train of thought and ultimately can be crowned the grand champeen, winner and smartest person in this forum. shhhh. I will totally deny I ever said that!

Differences are fun to watch on the stage, but really only mean something if we, as an audience, can find those little nuggets with which we personally relate. Even the antithesis of this -- things like Artaud's "Spurt of Blood" where there is little to relate to, or Gordon Craig's design for "The Masque of London" with it's epic proportions -- work because we strive to relate as individuals to the art we witness. By watching the alien and foreign we examine those parts of ourselves that are in contrast. This is an especially interesting phenomenon to use when working to develop "socially concious theatre." For instance, the parts of "The Vagina Monologues" that I find most theatrically worthy are when the focus is not "I have a pussy and you don't..." (as interpreted from my male viewpoint) but rather "I am a woman and sometimes my life is hard, but I'm going to get through this..." to which I can then think "you know, sometimes my life is hard, but I get through it too -- I guess by relating this story to myself I can grasp a little bit more about the trials of being female." there is no grand epiphany, but I do come away feeling changed by the art.

Bleah. I am coming to hate the term "socially concious theatre". Here's another of my (in)famous flip-flops. Maybe all theatre is socially concious, thereby making that term silly and stupid. I trust that playwrights write about what they know/see. I hope directors work to relate texts to the audience. How can this not be socially concious?

More after class...

Welcome back, Kate! Rumors of your demise were greatly exaggerated, it seems... I hope your summer is going well.

Let's clear up a few things....

I don't think it's fair to presume that I have a "disdain for tech theatre". Nothing I have posted on this site would give an indication of that -- I just reread all the posts to check for myself. Why the heck would I take the job as asst. shop foreman if I thought tech theatre education was worthless? It certainly wasn't for the money, and I didn't exactly enjoy having that time block sewn up all week every week...

As a director, some of the biggest artistic challenges I will face will be in the realm of working with designers to accomplish worthwhile production concepts. I need to learn more about tech shtuff, that's the truth. I've been working some this summer for Highland Rep and NC Stage doing just that. In part, my pragmatic reasons for not doing Trojan Women include (but are not limited to) the daunting task of developing tech for Mee's script without adequate experience, support, time, money, etc...

Yet I know that I am capable of directing that script. Because I am not a woman does not mean that I am out of touch with "women and women's issues". To assume such a thing shows an extremely short sighted comprehension of a director's job. Having broken a script down to its essential scene by scene, moment by moment meanings and explored how these meanings intertwine to support the overall themes and action of the play, a director is then, in rehearsal, responsible for helping the actors interpret through language and movement these issues in a way that are clear to the audience.

the issues in Trojan Women, Mee's version, are human issues. Pain, suffering, terror, freedom, loss, family, national identity, slavery, hope, dispair and most importantly, love -- these are what Mee is writing about through his exploration of Euripedes' story -- and those are themes to which all people can relate. reading three specific books by and about women is not going to help me interpret these themes any better. And besides, I've already read two of the selections mentioned.

We'll have plenty of time to talk about Pinter later.... ("Eugh"? really? to me that statement implies either dread or ennui--I don't quite understand dreading Pinter, and he damn sure isn't boring...)

But here's something I think the three of us "student-aged" folk do agree on - the necessity of playscript analysis. I am 100% in whole hearted agreement with Kate on this one. And, yes, you can quote that. Learning to read and interpret a play, any play, is the single most worth while thing a student can learn at the undergraduate level. everything else stems from there--everything. Peter Hall, in "Exposed by the Mask" talks about reading plays as plays, not just as literature. I think this is important in that it helps lead inevitably to all the other areas of theatre. Let's not just do literary analysis, let's also explore how these works of art exist in time and space. How they sound when read aloud, how rhythm and musicality of language (or even disjuncture) affects both the artists and the audience and helps contribute to the meaning of the play.

Organizationally, I think there are a number of ways courses could be designed. I trust that whatever decision you come to, Scott, will be infused with your typical passion for teaching and drawing your students into instances of self-exploration through drama. That doesn't worry me. I will say I do like the idea of rearranging the class away from the chronological approach currently used. If learning the "history of theatre" sequentially is necessary to educate students, then couldn't one semester course be the name and date, here's what happened next course and the other lit based courses become more thematically focused? I guess we could talk more about this at lunch tomorrow if you like. I'm sure my opinion will be worth exactly what you'll pay for it.

More to follow, I'm sure.

For instance, what if instead of History I, II, and Modern Drama, there was: Innovators and Revolutionaries, Geniuses, and Ensemble Makers; or a course called "Realism" and another called "Nonrealism." Or...

Scott

Welcome, Kate!

I think Kate makes a good point about my lack of knowledge about hanging a light and its connection to the Festival. If I had some experience, when I asked Dennis and Johannes and they waffled around, I would have made a better scheduling decision. I also think if I had more experience I wouldn't get pushed around so much on design elements for my shows. Hoping to be a bit more directive for "Frankenstein."

What show? Yes, Jess' "Trojan Women," which apparently is being changed to something else -- rumor has it, a couple of Pinter one-acts.

OK, I want to change the subject, now that I have three DDS brains available. My course rotation needs to be changed -- it is impossible to teach all the courses I need to teach and do Arts and Ideas as well. Here is what I teach right now: HIstory I, History II, Modern Drama, Playscript Analysis, and Directing. Let's put directing behind my back with the cheese for the time being. The other four courses are all required for all Drama majors. Here's the question: Erase from your memory the History I, II, Modern Drama, Playscript Analysis structure, and the assumptions that go with it. What should a Drama major know as a result of taking the "book" classes, and how might it be grouped into classes. This fall will be my one chance to make changes to my portion of the curriculum, so I want to make it count. Remember, there are options I haven't used, for instance, Term I and Term II classes, or classes that meet once a week for 2-1/2 hours. Let you imagination run wild.

Jess,
Who is giving you shit about your project?

Re: Nickel and Dimed -- good for you, Scott. Sarcasm will get you everywhere. (that wasn't meant to be sarcastic, really...) I think it interesting that folks would oppose required reading, which students never read anyway. Their real focus should be on shutting down meeting places such as Urban Burrito where the great rebel thinkers of the age are meeting regularly in an effort to promote intellectual discourse.

As for other topics: Alright, now we're getting somewhere. As with most everything in this world, the reality of the situation lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think we need to kid ourselves about extremes such as all lit training or all tech training. At UNCA the goal should be to deliver a quality undergrad theatre education through an identifiable liberal arts approach. The measuring stick for success could be whether or not grad programs consistently want to admit our students.

Re: ": I wish the department would devote its time to facilitating what I WANT to do, and stop making me do all this other stuff I DON’T want to do." This would only ring true if I were NOT doing the things the department requires. From my POV I have excelled at the things the dept. requires, while still pushing myself intellectually through avid reading and theatrically through developing my own projects. I have enjoyed the vast majority of my required experiences at UNCA. I am just confused as to why, after devoting myself to the department for three solid semesters, the spirit in which my upcoming project is being met is one of dissapproval and restriction. Now, I readily admit that I tend to let my personality drive forward in my quest to accomplish things--and this may be why I perceive this attitude from the dept. I guess I could be misinterpreting. I guess i COULD be wrong (but I'll deny I ever said that...)

Re: Cambridge model. At cambridge this may work, but at Cambridge they also have a different caliber of student--at least that's what I have been led to believe...

Brian,
The is a big part of me that would prefer to eliminate all tracks entirely, create a minimal core set of courses, and make the rest electives. Students could then shape their program according to their interests.
Comps give me a headache. You realize, of course, that when I got here the comps required were about double what they are now, right? When I was chair, I got fed up with all the issues surrounding the production program -- that is still the case.
Believe me, I'd be happy to just let the students do their own shows and spend my evenings at home.

Brian,
I'm not certain that "working crews" really is a valid means for comparison. Crew experiences exist so that, when you are directing or acting in show, you understand what everyone else's job is like -- what you can expect. It's sort of like the fact that you will never treat a waitperson without respect if you have ever been one yourself. You've seen a show from every angle.
The Cambridge model is interesting, but there are many who would say that this is an example of the blind leading the blind. That YOU may have learned a lot from directing your own show, but the actors didn't benefit a whole lot from your directing. The lack of interest that you both show for working on faculty-directed productions seems to me to reflect a rather upsetting lack of respect for the faculty -- that you believe we are too stupid and untalented to teach you anything. Which either says something about us, or about you.
I'm not quite certain why you prefer this approach (student-directed productions), given your extremely low opinion of the students in general that you expressed in another post. Wouldn't their productions suck? Perhaps you are thinking about what would have been good for you, but when we create a curriculum (and the productions are part of the curriculum), we have to take into consideration how it applies to the department as a whole, not only to our most motivated students.
That said, I wish there were more student productions. Although judging from the reaction to the Festival of Student Creativity, I'm not certain many would agree.

Who has been invited to participate? I invited Jennifer and Kate. Kate's email bounced -- I don't know what is up with her, and I'm more than a little worried. Jennifer hasn't responded. I tried John Jacobs at jjacobs@bulldog.unca.edu, but it bounced. Anybody have another email? And I don't have Mary McAvoy's email address. I am willing to invite others.

I am sorry for taking so long to respond to your posts, but I was off having a chiropractic adjustment following the intellectual whiplash I experienced from trying to follow Jess’ sudden change from a conservatory-like “why doesn’t the department require me to do a senior project” to a new demand that we have classes “to develop the imagination and intellect as a primary goal.” But I’m better now, and while the neckbrace is uncomfortable, I will still try to address both Brian’s and Jess’ posts in this one. We’ll see if I can do it.
Of course, you have noticed that I have little respect for the conservatory approach to undergraduate education. The focus is too much on training, and not enough on education. Saying this, however, does not mean that I am a proponent of the intellectual version of a conservatory, either. Brian’s idea of intellectual seriousness seems to be that we should have a graduate school experience at UNCA. I don’t agree. I think there should be intellectual rigor, but mostly of the self-exploratory kind. I want students to constantly be asked to question their opinions, their values, their viewpoints. This isn’t about content, it is about Socratic self-examination. I don’t care about dates, and titles, and events – I care about how theatre illuminates your self, your soul, your place in society.
Do I accomplish this goal? Only occasionally, mostly in Modern Drama. I continue to be driven by the idea that I must “cover” a certain amount of “material” or I haven’t “taught” anybody anything. This is largely misguided, and something I think I need to keep working on. THAT is why I started Dead Dramatists – not as some mental exercise club for intellectual geeks, or as a way to make the other students feel inferior and left out, but as a way to carve more time out of a week to explore topics that are outside of the “material” that I need to “cover” in my classes. And I chose all of you to participate because none of you were scared of me, so a real conversation could actually happen.
Our department needs to maintain a balance between education and training. Without training, we would be the Lit Dept; without education, we would be the School of the Arts.
As far as Jess’ desire for a change in departmental attitude, “Instead of throwing up roadblocks, I'd rather see magnanimous gestures of support. Instead of "here's what you are not allowed to do" I'd prefer, "how can we work together to accomplish all these things." Here’s how I interpret this: I wish the department would devote its time to facilitating what I WANT to do, and stop making me do all this other stuff I DON’T want to do. To which I respond: take the money you are throwing away on a UNCA education and start a theatre, if that’s what’s important to you, or read the books you want to read. But from my point of view, when you pay tuition you are saying that there are teachers from whom you want to learn, and you’re willing to put aside your own stuff for a while in order to do that. Student-teacher, not customer-employee.
Are there things I’d like to do to improve things in the department? Sure. But I don’t think the scorn you both express is justified.

Brian and Jess, I will respond to your posts soon. Right now, I want to change the subject a bit. In the Raleigh News-Observer today, a group of Republican state senators, along with a few conservative students, protested the requirement that all incoming freshmen read "Nickle and Dimed." UNC Chapel HIll is requiring this book, as is UNCA, and App State. You can read the article at http://www.newsandobserver.com/front/story/2682582p-2487126c.html.
I sent the following letter to the editor of the News-Observer and the Citizen-Times:

Dear Sens. Foxx, Allran, and Webster,
I read about your protest of the book “Nickle and Dimed” in the News-Observer, and I was particularly intrigued by Sen. Foxx’s suggestion that students read a classic rather than the assigned book. The more I thought about this idea, the more excited I got. I think they should read some of the Socratic Dialogues – perhaps “The Apology,” in which Socrates is brought to trial for corrupting the morals of the Athenian youth through his incessant questions about things like virtue and justice. This would not only be a classic, but would have the added benefit of showing that such critical thinking leads to death at the hands of the State. What a dramatic way for students to learn the valuable lesson that such questioning is, as Senator Webster says, intellectual pornography!
Oh! I just had another idea! Then we could have them read “The Federalist Papers” and the United States Constitution in order to show just how wrong-headed the Founding Fathers were when they questioned the rule of Great Britain. After all, such phrases as “all men are created equal” could only be the result of a radical questioning of the underlying values of the British government in power.
So thank you and all of your colleagues for opening up for me an entirely different way of thinking about education. Forget about all that stuff about democracy relying on an informed populace using its critical thinking skills, in 2003 the best thing a student can learn is that thinking and questioning leads to trouble with the government.
And that is a really great lesson! I hope you will continue to share your wisdom and insights with the populace.

With great sincerity,

Dr. Scott E. Walters

Alright, two days go by and everyone gives up on this thread? I'd love to keep this discussion going -- any takers? Hello? How many people have been invited to join this forum, anyway? How do I invite new blood?

How many of our classes in the department actually have working to develop the imagination and intellect as a primary goal? In comparison, how many of our classes are "lab" classes where we are required to perform specific theatrical tasks in order to prepare us for (as I have heard more than one faculty member aver in public) "real world experience"?

I don't consider a summative, post-show evaluation to be the "only" worthwhile means of criticism. I merely question why such a process does not exist. I also believe strongly that it is the responsibility of the faculty to meet at least once a semester with each declared major to discuss their progress as theatre artists. To claim that there is not enough time for this process is just plain laziness. There are what, 30 declared majors? Even at an hour a piece this means a total of six hours a semester from each faculty member spent meeting with their advisees about artistic development. And I don't believe that the current advisory schedule addresses any of these issues. Those meetings are specifically for schedule advisement--a way for the university to ensure that the student gets "pushed out the door" at the proper rate. Instead, each maor shoud feel that their faculty are aware of their development process and recieve tangible, personalized instruction on what things the student needs to work towards in the upcoming semester.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a large gap between the things we "do" in the department and what we "say". Lip service is paid all the time to encouraging intellectual growth and imaginative development, yet the day-to-day reality of our work lies in preparing the students for the "professional theatre" (and I also don't know what the hell that means). We talk about how our art is of a collaborative nature--and then the general feeling of the group at the end of this past semester is one of dissappointment and dissention following a brow-beating from our chairperson delivered as the last note to the department before adjourning for summer break.

I know I sound extremely bitter as I write this...and maybe my viewpoint is skewed by my own deficient personality. But what I want more than anything at UNCA (an institution that has recieved thousands upon thousands of dollars from me) is to see a change in attitude in our department. Instead of throwing up roadblocks, I'd rather see magnanimous gestures of support. Instead of "here's what you are not allowed to do" I'd prefer, "how can we work together to accomplish all these things." Instead of condoning subpar performance and execution through a definite lack of in-rehearsal/in-process critique I would rather be told WHILE I AM DOING THE JOB what steps I can take to becoming a better artist.

(but I AM enjoying this dialogue!)

Come on, Jess, just how much feedback do you need about your performance in shop call, for crying out loud? Many of the comps are basically pass-fail: you either did them, or you didn't. "Gosh, Jess, you really have a gift for tearing the stubs off tickets in the box office." Give me a break. To expect to take up a half an hour of a faculty member's time discussing how well you hammer a nail is unrealistic. We wouldn't do anything else! Don't you get feedback WHILE YOU ARE DOING THE JOB? For instance, "For Chrissake, Jess, when you are selling tickets don't tell customers you thought the show was 'off' the previous evening -- sell them the ticket!" The comp represents the experience -- you had the experience, you did the job (if you didn't, we wouldn't OK the comp), so presumably you have reached a basic level of competence. Does that mean that you could get a job building a set? No, it means you had the set building experience.
And let's be realistic. How much time do you think a history professor takes evaluating and meeting with a student about their final research project? Now, take that amount of time and divide it by the number of comps we have, and see whether you think faculty don't spend enough time evaluating comps. Jeez, there are five of us on the faculty -- do you think we can devote our day to making sure you feel you are getting enough attention?
When you are working at the higher levels of comps that involve greater creativity, you are getting feedback constantly. Apparently you don't count all the feedback you get during the rehearsal process. Do you only consider a summative, post-show evaluation worthwhile?
A comprehensive exam project is what they do at conservatories -- let me say it again: we ain't one. Unless a student is going to do every aspect of the project -- act, direct, design, run the light and sound boards, shift the scenery, sell the tickets, house manage, stage manage -- then an exam project won't be comprehensive. Rather, it will do what such projects do in conservatories: examine you in your area of specialty. That's not what we're about, we don't have the resources for it, and to put it bluntly we think it is a shitty way to educate undergrads. Students who want that focused experience should seek out a conservatory. Otherwise, it is like going into the local BP gas station and getting outraged that you can't rent a tux there -- it isn't what we do.
Also, it is our goal to DEVELOP "original, creative, knowledgeable and caring theatre artists" -- development is a process, not an end result. When you graduate, you are a few steps closer to the goal. Also, notice that this says nothing about preparing students for the "professional theatre" (whatever the hell that is). Similarly, the History Department does not graduate majors who are competent to be professional historians, it is the first step. My primary focus is on educating people THROUGH theatre, and secondarily educating people FOR theatre. And note I use the word "education," not "training." School of the Arts trains. To me, you learn how to use your intellect and imagination first, then you learn all the trade secrets. Conservatories do the latter, and ignore the former completely. It is the biggest educational rip-off in higher education.

I would absolutely agree that the giving of criticism needs attention. I, for one, would love to engage in a class or seminar series focused on the writing of theatrical crit. I can totally see how being required to learn how to write crit. would help in accepting crit written about your own work. I think it would be a positive step for our department to require crit. of all mainstage shows from all drama majors. In the same turn, I believe the faculty must be responsible for giving criticism to our students as well as to each other. In such a small dept, why are we not given time each semester to meet with the faculty and discuss our development as individual theatre artists? How can our faculty actually develop "original, creative, knowledgeable and caring theatre artists" when such subjective, personal development would absolutely require a constant exchange of dialogue with the student about their personal growth?

Thus the "idiocy" of our comp system. In the three semesters that I have been accumulating comps at UNCA, I have done all of my work and turned in the necessary forms to the necessary people--yet I am still waiting for even one of my faculty to respond to me or share their assesment of my work. I know for a fact that this is typical of all students in the department. And now the possibility for a true comprehensive review of my abilities is long past. It would be impossible to accurately assess my performance in shop call for "The Birds" 18 months after the show closed. So what happens is that as I approach graduation the faculty will decide to declare me "competent" in my field of study without ever engaging my work in any type of critical process. What if I was still a history major? Would it be fair to me as a student if I spent a year working on my undergrad research--but along the way no one ever checked on my progress, leant criticism to fine tune my final product, never even read the damn thing when I was done--or even worse, read it, smiled politely, applauded briefly, and then went to the lobby to see if there were any cookies left?

As it was explained to me, the purpose served by our method of competency evaluation is to substitute for a major paper or project at the senior level as is required by most departments. Why is it such a bad idea to require our seniors to do comprehensive-exam level projects? They could take so many different forms! We could even do away with one faculty directed mainstage each semester and give the stage time to the students who need to do senior projects, which is the best way to determine and develop the competency of the student. The faculty would be required to(and I would hope they would desire to) engage directly in the work of their personal advisee's in the role of mentor as they do the projects.

As it stands now, the drama department is failing in it's commitment to develop the type of theatre artists mentioned above. This is not to say that some of those who have graduated and will graduate don't actually meet the criteria of the mission statement--the problem is, how do they know? With such a complete lack of feedback, no accurate assessment of competency is possible.

Well, while I agree that everybody needs work at taking criticism, I would also say that the giving of criticism needs equal attention. For instance, in this case context is very important: this was not a full production, but rather a staged reading, given after minimal rehearsal, and cast from a very specified group of actors (as opposed to the pool of all UNCA actors). So making generalizations about the vocal abilities of "departmental actors" doesn't really seem valid. Indeed, comments about the any aspects of the performance would largely be out of place. The only thing that really ought to be discussed should be the musical itself.
As far as the concept of anonymous criticism being a "better catalyst for discussion," I don't agree. If the intention of the critic is to help the artists to improve, as you imply in your post, then those offering criticism learn to make that criticism in a way that it can be heard and used -- dialogue is a two-way street. If, on the other hand, the critic is not committed to educating the artists (which is the traditional view of, say, newspaper criticism), then the critic should have the courage to sign his name and not be concerned with whether the artists learn anything. Can't have it both ways.
As far as the "idiotic comp system," I think it deserves better thought than simply name-calling. Perhaps in this forum!

Yeah, I just read it -- it seems the only "repercussions" that would be likely in coming would be in the form of catty comments from the "half" of the department that can't take criticism...

But maybe that's the point? Since our students AND faculty have shown their unwillingness (or inability?) to engage in a critical educational process perhaps an anonymous post is a BETTER catalyst for discussion. Then, the posited crit. is an IDEA and not attached to a PERSON. I remember when Confetti went up--three members of my ART310 class reviewed it, all pans. When I mentioned in class that it might be worth sending these reviews to the drama dept the response was initially laughter and then an absolute refusal to do such a thing. No one wanted to be responsible for hurting another student's feelings. Now, in this situation the theatrical conversation was continued, the merits and detractions of the presentation were discussed avidly--unfortunately, they were not discussed with those involved in the show who may be the ones who need to hear it most...

This seems to be a model that mightwork better in our department, since everyone treats their work as unassailable and stage worthy based solely upon the merit of personal effort. I'd like to point to our idiotic comp system as a PERFECT example of reinforcing the idea that it doesn't matter if your work is competent as long as the work gets done and the show goes up....

Jess

A few days ago, I went to Brian's new website and read a review of "Confetti." Aside from the review itself, I was surprised so see that it was anonymously posted. To me, this seems like the theatrical equivalent of sneaking up and smearing vaseline all over somebody's doorknob, and then running away. I suspect that the review was posted by somebody in the Drama Dept who is afraid there will be repercussions if he or she identifies him- or herself. Perhaps there would be, although I doubt it. More importantly, it seems to me that critics should have the courage of their convictions. If what they have to say is important to them, then they should accept whatever consequences follow with equanimity; if it isn't important enough to accept those consequences, then don't post it. But to post something anonymously seems cowardly. I guess it depends on what your purpose is in posting a review -- is it just to whack somebody and feel better because you feel superior? Or is it really to contribute to the theatrical conversation?

Scott