Comment

Comment by John Patrick Bray 17 hours ago

Realism and Naturalism are essentially the first genres to emerge as avant-garde; that's usually the point I start with before diving into the "isms." When I teach theatre, my hope is that my students will be well-versed in as many traditions as possible, in order to give various works a context. Certainly, a number of "realistic" authors rely on avant-garde conventions: consider Death of a Salesman, and the original title "In his Head," as a work that relies heavily on expressionism; consider Tennessee Williams's "The Glass Menagerie," which relies on the Brechtian A-effect with the various projected slides (which were meant to actually stir an audience's nostalgia, rather than alienate emotions; this was part of what Williams hoped would be a "Plastic Theatre" movement); consider Paula Vogel, and how she relies on a Greek Chorus for "How I Learned to Drive." In short, plays are a product of a socio-cultural-historic movement, and practitioners should have an awareness of their current situation, as well as the previous forms of theatre practice and theory. Why else go to college for theatre? If all a practitioner cares about is making a dollar (first of all, he or she is in the wrong business), then why not join a company as an apprentice and follow the capitalist notion of "rising through the ranks?" I worry when I'm asked how an education will lead to a career; most of the time, it really cannot, as I can't say I know anyone who makes a living only through his or her art. Hopefully, we create theatre (and teach theatre) because we have a different calling, one that values humanity (in all of its problematic and beautiful definitions), and relies on an insatiable curiosity.

Cheers,

JpB

Comment by Joe Wilson on Thursday

I must admit, it was quite a shock to get out of a very "artsy" college theatre environment, and out into the world. Now it is mostly farce, murder mystery, and musical.

Comment by Scott Bloom on Thursday

My first reaction is that people tend to learn what they want to learn, but I think like any art form it's most important for someone to become a good crafts-person first before declaring themselves an artist. Only when someone is well versed in the craft can they then re-invent, deconstruct, or otherwise alter the form.

But then, what exactly is Avant-Garde theatre, and how do you teach it? Doesn't anything new or different, (that adds to the art form,) eventually become part of the mainstream? It's important not to limit one's exposure to what's out there, but unless you can break it down into some sort of method, style, premise, or meaning, how do you teach it? The only way to explain any contemporary art is by comparison with its roots and history.

Comment by Gwydion Suilebhan on Thursday

Hello, friend. So... just to play devil's advocate... you don't think an education might accomplish both things by beginning with an education in how things are, THEN in stretching the boundaries?

I'm honestly not sure myself. I suspect that a healthy disregard for there being a "right" way to balance the two at all is probably wise... but I thought it was worth asking.

Comment by Brett Abelman on Thursday

Theoretically, can't there be programs that focus more on avant-garde and developing the student as a creator of Avant-Garde, Innovative Art, and programs that focus more on preparing them for the Real World, and ones with a mix in between - and the student attends the type that appeals to them?

Or does that raise the question of whether the student "knows" what's "best" for them when they're going in as a young, naive thing - in which case it is up to the teachers and the Monolithic Theatre Community to figure out what we need to be teaching the youngins in order to better be preparing the next theatre generation?

In other words, I think the phrase "should WE" (which everyone, myself included, uses) suggests a certain bias - in this case, a bias towards who is in control of the student's education. Not that it's incorrect or wrong - just something worth noting, I think.

Comment by Mariah MacCarthy on Wednesday

Having had a pretty avant-garde theater education, and now starting to embrace naturalism in my writing, I wouldn't have it any other way. Theater practitioners have their whole lives to learn Things As They Are, but I'm glad to have the more avant garde tools in my back pocket in case I want them. There was a spirit of Anything Is Possible at Skidmore--I would've hated for that to be stifled in the name of, "Well, this is how things are in The Real World, so maybe instead of this gender-bending devised piece that has no script yet you should consider Death of a Salesman." (That gender-bending devised piece became THE ALL-AMERICAN GENDERF*CK CABARET, which was my first professionally produced full-length in New York and has been largely responsible for the momentum I've gained as a playwright in the past couple years.)

That being said, I do wish there had been a more comprehensive Preparing You For the Real World course or several. There was one "senior seminar" that was supposed to be focused on the business of theater, but it was extremely actor-focused and ultimately of very little use to me. I learned practical theater skills by working the box office and building sets, something which I think every theater program, even (or especially) conservatory-style programs, should do, but I learned nothing about marketing myself or pursuing a career as a playwright or (as I then thought I was going to be) a director.

And as to Richard T. Young's comment: there are productions like that being done outside of a University context. Sometimes very successful ones. So "avant-garde" and "preparing students for the real world" are not mutually exclusive.