The week got off to a heated start around here thanks in no small part to Mike Daisey’s provocative “Theatre discourse” quote. In case you missed it, Daisey has “a vested interest in lowering the politeness level in theatrical discourse.”
Chris Wilkinson, at the Guardian UK, has more to say on this, and neatly synthesizes an argument combining some of the topics floating around the theatrosphere – from anonymous commenting to the “difference between abuse and robust argument.”
Check out: Noises off: Unnamed and unashamed.
This indignation about online anonymity is a distracting argument and entirely beside the point.
Don Hall’s “taint” comment addresses the issue perfectly.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who said what, or if they signed their names to their words. I’ve read plenty of brilliant, incisive online posts with no apparent author, and plenty of tracts and screeds by writers with by-lines who deserve to be “punched in the taint”.
I worry that anonymous writing (especially during heated blog discussions) creates a sense of suspicion around the author’s intent – and that that suspicion undermines the credibility of otherwise-well-thought-out arguments. Which is itself a kind of distraction.
On the other hand, there’s something fun and provocative about the anonymity.
Anyway, I hope there will be no punching of taints at this venue.
Yes, but, suspicion of intent is an element even when a name is used; and intent can be disguised even when a name is used.
Anonymity also keeps a debate “quarantined”. ie. what happens in cyberspace, stays in cyberspace. That way, if you & I ever happen to meet, we won’t continue this debate, but establish a new interaction, with a clean slate.
Ian — Unbelievable! My response:
http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2008/04/theatre-ideas-jumps-pond.html
Oh, you can totally throw comments and opinions around anonymously if you want. Go for it. Not very many people are going to care about what you have to say, however. Sorry. People respond first and foremost to courage.
Because we choose a life in the theatre for one overarching reason: to live out loud. Which is, to stand in front of the crowd and present ourselves in full in the service of something we believe in fully and argue it to the limits of that belief, and that courage must by means extend to our discourse on the thing we care the most about.
If you have a passing interest in it, or look at the “biz” as a means to something else, by all means fire pot shots from behind a blind. Don’t expect too many direct hits, though.
There are actors who bring their true selves to the work. There are those that put on masks and go through rote, unchanging routines. These actors are called mimes, and nobody pays much attention to them either.
Pompous ass.
hmmm, anonymous, you kind of had me coming around to your point of view…until your last comment. throwing around insults without a tangible identity smacks of cowardice. i’d be all for it if you were willing to stand behind it, but as is, not so much.
Whatever. It was the only appropriate way to respond to Simon’s pretentious, sophomoric tirade. You might notice, I have never lectured others on how to govern themselves, and I expect the same courtesy.
I repeat: this indignation about online anonymity is a distracting argument and entirely beside the point.
Anyway, I was hoping to have some interesting conversations here. But I’ve gotten bored. Bye.
Yikes,
OK. I’m not sure we’ve got many more places to go with this to be or not to be anonymous discussion.
What’s next?
I’m up for interesting conversation.
What did you have in mind?
Directing? Acting? Theatre history? Theatre marketing?
Can someone throw a new topic out there?
Thanks!
Maybe mimes . . . because I’m not sure I agree with Simon’s comment that mimes are irrelevant.
How do people feel about mimes?
weird, i don’t follow the train of logic here. stating:
“indignation about online anonymity is a distracting argument”
and then causing indignation through name calling instead of responding to arguments presented to you, and then returning to the statement:
“indignation about online anonymity is a distracting argument”
yep. it is getting boring…
Funny how all the lively conversation on this site has been stimulated by me (and Ian), and if I don’t post an anonymous comment, nothing happens at all.
Alright. I’ll apologize for calling Simon a pompous ass, if he’ll apologize for being one.
Mike, that goes for you too.
Clean slate.
Let’s talk about how commercial pressures are affecting style & content of new playwriting.
Anon:
First of all, there’s been many ‘lively conversations’ on this site not stimulated by you, and to say that ‘nothing happens at all’ if you don’t post a comment is the height of pomposity. Second, responding with petulant name-calling isn’t conversation at all, it’s flaming, and actually fits the true definition of the word sophomoric.
I appreciate the offer, but i really don’t care if you apologize or not, the whole point of my original comment being that choosing to hide behind a pseudonym in a public forum renders you insubstantial. And I may very well be a pompous ass, but I know for a fact that Mike isn’t.
Sorry about the fuss Ian, that’s the last I’ll say on it. However, I must clarify my earlier statement: I never said that mimes are irrelevant, just widely ignored (and, in many cases, reviled). I can’t imagine the work someone who finds themselves in that discipline has to do to gain widespread appreciation of their art form. And we think that we’ve got work to do…
Simon Ogden hates mimes.
How are commercial pressures affecting style & content of new playwriting?
I can only speculate here, but I’ll try a stab at this.
I believe that many contemporary artists are caught in an artificial and adversarial position when it comes to economics, business and commercial interests.
Many young artists who study under studio programs, for example, are taught to privilege “craft” over “business” (as if the two were somehow separable). “Artists” study “art” and the business-minded folks, if they want to work in the arts and culture sector, study “arts management”.
The effect of this is that artists walk out of school with very little idea of how to turn their crafts into sustainable careers.
So: you’re an emerging playwright and you spend a lot of time writing plays. But how much are you thinking about market research? How to best serve and develop a niche? What stories your audience might want to hear?
These are commercial interests. I would never argue that commercial interests should be the sole determinant in deciding which plays to write or how to write them. But it seems that in contemporary Canadian theatre, commercial interests tend to either rule all (think Phantom of the Opera) or are hardly taken into account at all (think indie theatre).
I think our industry needs to do a better job of bringing together commercial interests and good art – to the benefit of both sides.
Or maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Any takers?
—
Oh, and I want to throw a quick shout out to Mike Daisey and his “vested interest in lowering the politeness level in theatrical discourse.”
Mission accomplished!
;-)
No, you’re bang on with the assertion that arts academia drops the ball in its attention to providing business savvy along with technique developement. Maybe they don’t have the answers either, other than propagating arts academia.
As far as commercial pressure on playwrights goes, that is a tough one. I completely agree that we must enjoin the community in discussing what they want to see on stage, but I also feel that if you produce something that they don’t expect, that they’ll go along with you. Most civilians that I talk to want comedy from their indie theatre experience, and this certainly word-of-mouths better. But if I, as an artist, have no interest in writing comedy, where does that leave me?
Successful plays must exist in a meeting point between what the writer has to write and what the zeitgeist is ready to explore, eg. Angels in America. I think Mouawad’s Scorched is getting pretty close to that scope of work.
I’d love to say something about this, but I don’t feel welcome on this blog anymore.
Hey Simon, I’m someone you’ve definitely heard of.
Bye again.
How dramatic! And kinda creepy.
Everyone’s welcome here. As far as I’m concerned.
Actually. I have more to say on this so I might as well say it.
I think this politeness level stuff is a hugely important issue facing Toronto’s independent theatre industry.
That’s why I love Mike Daisey’s position on it.
I also find it poetic that an anonymous writer emerged in this space to coincide with heated debate going on elsewhere in the theatroshere about anonymous reviews and commenting.
And now we have it playing out right here: The politics of anonymity set against a chippy discussion on politeness.
The way I see it, there’s a performative element to what’s going on here – a performance of the intellectual material that’s on the table. We’re not just talking about how politeness is paralyzing theatrical discourse, we’re actively roughing it up. Where will it take us?
And I do think there has been a lack of heated debate in this space. So I appreciate Anon’s attempts to add some fire to the smoke.
And just as it seems easier to be rude to people when you’re anonymous, people writing under their real names find it easier to be rude to anonymous writers.
Are we talking about theatre? Not directly. But we’re all clearly theatre “people”, and we’re talking in a space that’s designed to be about theatre. So to me, the above discussion (and much of the discussion that happened over this past week) is part of the theatrical discourse argument. And I love it!
So I’m not arriving at any conclusions about this for now, except to say that I really do appreciate any attempts to make this space more of what it could be. If it gets heated, so be it.
Carry on. If I feel like I have something helpful to contribute, I’ll toss it in. But I’ll let you people with “names” do most of the talking.
That’s right, Simon. Live out loud.
Oh, thanks Ian. I had one foot out the door, until I read that post. Nicely written. Okay, I’ll stick around.
Yes, uptightness is a HUGE problem in this country.
Hey Simon, you wanna talk about creepy? Creepy is a young indie artist who nags and scolds like a church lady.
wowza.
Young! Oh my god, I love you, thank you for that. Listen, I truly am sorry that my comment offended you on such an emotional level, that was honestly not my intent. It was written from a place of frustration over the dearth of ongoing honest communication about new theatre, face-to-face communication amongst peers. In the blogosphere, traditional social tactics of eye contact and body language to indicate engagement are absent, so I’m a proponent of the few tools of intent that we do have, ie. screen names, emoticons, whatever. My personal opinion is that the bypassing of the identity tag is disingenuous, and suspect, as it’s the only real connection to you as the person behind the ideas.
I do not in any way discourage you from commenting, I’m just saying how the anonymous tag makes me feel about your comments. I will enthusiastically engage you on any theatre-related topic, as long as we can leave the name-calling out of it. That’s pretty much the line.
Cool, Simon. I’ll keep it civil, except when I forget that promise.
I guess I see the internet differently from you. I see it more like the “forest” in Shakespeare’s comedies. A place where we can shed our identities and run wild and give voice to our hidden selves.
(Hey, there’s a “Midsummer Night’s Dream” production concept!)
This “face-to-face” and “name” business is overrated, IMO.
holy moly! 25 comments! ian, is that a record? ttc strike and everyone’s stuck at home i guess.
hey anon, i’m with ian, please feel welcome. gosh, i’d rather anonymous comments than none at all.
but yeah, i’m all for duke’n it out if there’s a disagreement too. see ya round the playground…
come to think of it, maybe i saw you at the theatre today? who knows? the mystery is killing me a little to be honest.
Yes, and I think that’s a big part of the anti-anonymous sentiment. The mystery of anonymity drives people a bit crazy. That’s understandable.
But sorry, I’m not going to disclose my name, for a few reasons. The least of them being, I’m shy.
I’ve always thought that anonymous commenting was a bit cowardly, but I am kind of loving this comment drama! Carry on, please – I’m just going to grab some popcorn.
no dude. this thread is done. we’re all friends now.
What he said.
Unless Alison would like to stir the pot …
Nah, I’m not one to stir the pot. I just like to eat the soup. Does that even make any sense? Whatever, I’m hungry.
There are now 30 comments on this thread, and some of them even make sense! Theatre Is Territory WINS!