I have
recently decided on a specific line of inquiry I would like to take forth into
the third module. This module has been difficult in that I have been uncertain
as to the context in which I should set my inquiry. I have worked within a few
different areas of the arts, however, I feel my investigation would be best
carried out within a setting that is most familiar to me and my knowledge
acquired via training received at Urdang Academy. And so, the working title for
my inquiry project is ‘to what extent is collaboration useful to the performer
when working within theatre?’ Since deciding this, I have been sourcing
literature that directly relates to this topic. Robert Cohen’s ‘Working
Together in Theatre: Collaboration and Leadership’ is a prominent work in relation
to my inquiry in that it is rare for a practitioner to discuss the art of
working with other people and not focusing solely on the performance and
technique of self.
“Every theatre production, though
sometimes headlined by a world-renowned director or one or two famous actors,
is put together by a great many people, numbering from the dozens to the
hundreds. And when these people work together they can, as a collective, attain
artistic heights that none could attain independently. “If the theatre is not
about the interaction of people, it’s about nothing,” says Joe Dowling, former
head of Ireland’s Abbey Theatre and now of Minneapolis’s Guthrie Theatre.
“Theatre,” Dowling continues, “can never be solely about concept, ideas,
intellectual pursuits – it has to be about the way in which the people relate
to one another.” (Cohen, 2010)
This
extensive quote provides suggestions from both Cohen (2010) and Dowling for
collaboration being only a positive influence for practice. Dowling’s latter
comments deal with ignorance for individual efforts in preserving an
over-arching goal in the production’s design instead of learning how to
communicate with peers beforehand. Cohen (2010) denotes the phrase “family” as
a common colloquial used by individual’s within the same cast to express a deep
fondness for one another, brought on by a successful experience with
collaboration. Cohen (2010) goes onto cite family in the literal sense being an
initiator for theatre and collaboration’s necessity in crafting formal theatre
as we know it today. He references arguably the greatest contributor in forming
modern acting as we know it today, Konstantin Alekseiev or ‘Stanislavsky’, the
name he later adopted when he co-founded the Moscow Art Theatre, began his work
in theatre with relatives as the ‘Alekseiev Circle’. Although he includes
evidence of collaboration working at a much earlier time, Cohen’s (2010)
inclusion of Stanislavsky’s beginnings in the lead up to his founding of the
Moscow Art Theatre demonstrates a major shift in collaboration’s importance to
performance. This is not solely credited to Stanislavsky, but the development
of institutes akin to the Moscow Art Theatre that led to the development of
more structured teachings and methods of practice has broken down the communal
value of the ‘family’ ideology in favour of a thinking more driven towards
using theatre as a platform for business.
Cohen (2010)
cites this transition’s occurrence being partly due to the reason that “theatre
has diversified geographically, particularly in America.” He references that “In
the 1940s and 50s, the American professional theatres simply meant the New York
professional theatre”, because of its exclusivity to the city. “Now, however,
there are nearly 2000 professional theatres in the United States, about 150 of
them operating on budgets of anywhere from one to thirty-some million dollars.”
He also indicates that “Such diversification is good in many ways, but – since
the vast majority of theatres outside of New York present only limited runs of,
typically, three to seven weeks – it has also led to actors, designers and
directors working mainly on short-term, single-production assignments rather
than on yearly (much less lifetime) contracts as was commonly the case in
earlier generations.” This changes the attitude to which artistes approach
working with colleagues. When cast in a theatre show today, they are aware that
the relationship is built upon a contract that forces collaboration as part of
the agreement. This is a different kind of collaboration to one that has
spawned out of a genuine bond and inspiration to work with another individual.
Cohen (2010) strengthens this argument with the notion that “the “family of
strangers” that gathers today to mount a twenty-first-century production is
also educationally diversified” by way of “artists who have been trained in
different schools, in different cities, in different ways, and by different
teachers.” Cohen suggests that while the opportunity to take part in
performance has never been stronger, he stresses what this means for performers
who participate in collaboration today.
“Moreover, they have usually received
intensely specialized training in
just a single theatrical discipline; as an actor, perhaps, or sound designer or
stage manager or a projection designer…And when they then become professionals,
they will join specialized professional unions.” (Cohen, 2010)
What Cohen
refers to is the calibre in which today’s performers are trained for
profession. Although graduates of programmes can show immense levels of
proficiency within their respective fields, it could be argued that these
modern, streamlined methods of learning only hinder means of collaboration
within the context of ensemble work. Cohen draws a line of comparison between
the types of collaboration as was known when theatre came to prominence in
popular culture. He credits theatre practitioner Thespis who, according to
Greek philosopher Aristotle, was not only the first person to ever step onstage
to assume the role of an actor, but also wrote, directed and designed the stage
mechanics of the play by himself. Granted, by today’s standard the ability and
quality to which these jobs are executed were probably primitive but it does
conjure an idea as to the scope individual’s previously strived for. This is in
sharp contrast to today. Although theatre has been regarded as a form of business
for decades, it could be argued that communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991)
that have evolved as a means to regulate and sustain its fruitfulness disrupts
the flow of creativity. The contract for a performance job today, for example,
will pass through many modes of communication before the individual can allow
themselves thought for what happens onstage. These could include terms and
agreements of the job and contacting Equity (the performer’s work union) for
ensuring fair cooperation between employer and employee. Such divided thought,
brought on by a developed awareness of ethics in the workplace, can cripple
exploration and will often remain a conscious factor for performers even in the
midst of active collaboration. Such hurdles as aforementioned can inhibit the
ability to do so effectively.
To follow,
Cohen (2010) introduces the main idea within his literature; “collaboration and
leadership”. If collaboration is the working together of colleagues then
leadership is the individual’s urge to express their own artistic choices. But
how does one maintain this when work is being adjusted by proxy of
collaboration? How do performers deal with their work being critically
examined? Are they willing to accept that other’s input is not for humiliation’s
sake but instead for the good of the project? On the other hand, Cohen (2010) poses
that work can never truly be a fair collaborative effort due to the hierarchy
of those involved. Despite their direct rapport with a participating audience,
performers often have the least amount of influence on a production. For
example, if the project is the revival of a famous musical the financial
investors may seek to capitalise on such a thing by asking the creative team to
capture aspects that made the original so successful. This could include acting
choices, choreography, set and lighting design. In the interest of maintaining
an economically robust industry, should it be expected of performers to sacrifice
integrity? The closer I examine collaborative roles, the clearer it becomes for
a need to collect data from all contributors including the creatives, the
performers, stage management, financial support as well as the general
public/audience who support the arts. Hopefully a diverse palate of acquired
information can provide me with some interesting results for collaboration’s
benefit.
Bibliography
Cohen, R,
(2010) Working together in theatre:
collaboration and leadership, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Lave, J, Wenger, E, 1991,
“Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation”, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment