Leah Lowe starts her article, "Toward 'Critical Generosity': Cultivating Student Audiences" with the understanding that "critical generosity requires an audience that is prepared to analyze the meanings that a performance produces and that is, at the same time, receptive to the vision of the world that it puts forth....an active audience that brings to a performance an awareness of itself--of its own spectatorial conventions and critical biases--as well as a commitment to evaluate the performance thoughtfully."While we have a particularly unique opportunity as a professional training program on a University campus to cultivate student audiences, I feel that cultivating critical generosity in all our audiences is an important and oft neglected aspect of the theatrical process.
Given that, how do you see Lowe's understanding and interpretation of the role of the audience connecting to Liz Lerman's framework for the critical response process? What aspects of criticism do each privilege? What questions arise for you?
15 comments:
Lowe sees the audience, as I often forget to, as a partner in creation. In a way they uphold the integrity of a production and reveal the lessons that the artists need to learn, just as the artists are attempting to convey their own messages to the audience. Originally, having first read the Lerman article last year in PODS I may have not connected them so entirely. But having read them in a setting where I was asked to connect them I can definitely see the jig-saw-esque edges. It seems to me that the format that Lerman sets up for discussing a work with its creator is what Lowe adapts to create a smart and objective audience, with informed opinions. They don't get trapped in attacking a piece without examining first its possible merits and intentions.
The differences however, arise from this same circumstance. Lerman's seems to me to be more geared towards a discussion setting, where the main purpose is to help an artist improve or better understand the viewing of their work by the public. In this way, one could say that Lerman privileges criticism for the benefit of the creator, with a byproduct of growth in the audience participator. Lowe on the other hand clearly privileges the audiences learning and expansion of their horizons as a main point, with the knowledge gained by the performer a valuable result. The main difference seems to be the presence of the creator intended in the room. In the same vein it seems that Lerman is more concerned with the process of criticism and how it is given, whereas Lowe concerns herself with the actual thoughts of audience. She's more about the cultivation of a broader perspective than the polite communication that often achieves it.
I don't feel that many questions arise for me reading these passages, if anything more answers have persisted. I feel that I have misunderstood the role of the Dramaturg to be one of strictly authenticating a play. Making sure that it was accurately executed in the directors vision, through research, to improve the show for the audience. From the last few days and this reading in particular I see that the role encompasses this, but also so much more. A Dramaturg is also the liaison to the outside world. They find the connections of the vision with society and discover how the audience will and after have taken the performance piece. They use this to expand their already vast amount of knowledge on context, content, history and form, to better a production from the outside and in. However, I am of course not claiming this a definition of a work that is still so abstract and transitory in and of itself.
I really enjoyed Lowe's "take" on what an audience is because so often as artists we forget that we are creating art for the audience. In other words, theatre as well as film, dance, and art are all created with the intention of being seen by the audience and are such a crucial component of the art, which is a fact that is often overlooked. I think Lowe's idea that the audience is an active member in the art flows really well with Lerman’s critical response process because it too is asking the audience to not just be an observer and consumer of the product but an active participant.
I must say I agree with Colter on where these two differ and what each one of them privileges. It is clear that Lerman’s critical response process is geared more towards helping the artist better their work through constructive criticism, while Lowe’s is more concerned with the audience and their growth and understanding gained through the process of being an active participant in the art. Lerman, I feel, also wants to go above and beyond the performance in order for any of the participants, audience or artist, to gain anything out of the experience. I think Lowe’s on the other hand is satisfied with the growth and understanding the audience, and perhaps even the artist, gains just by being a part of the actual performance.
If anything this article helped answer some of the questions that were brought up in my mind from the previous article we read. I think mostly though what this article did was help build on my understanding of what a dramaturg is, in terms of form and content, as well as history and context. I think this article helped expand on the ideas I was forming from the last article that it is the job of the dramaturg to help figure out how to frame the show in terms of themes, context and the historical time of the play as well as when it was being performed. After reading about what Lowe’s views the audience to be, it has expanded this idea of framing and now I see it more as the dramaturg is responsible for taking the play and help put it in a way that the audience will not only understand but can interact with and be an active participant. Obviously this is still a work in progress definition but it is becoming clearer with the readings and class discussions.
Lowe’s interpretation of the audience is similar to Lerman’s idea of responders in the critical response process. Just like an audience, responders can be anyone witnessing the art, of any form, that is displayed. An audience will express opinions as will a responder. However, Lerman describes her responders in direct contact with the artist, while Lowe’s audience is not. For Lowe, the audience is her students and the discussions are held in a classroom. Both Lerman and Lowe stress the importance of recognizing the influence of our own cultural perspective as spectators.
Lerman and Lowe both privilege the aspect of asking questions in criticism. Specifically, they both emphasize the fact that questions should not be loaded. The presentation provided by the facilitator or the teacher must be carefully planned and worded so as not to instigate preconceived notions. Lerman approaches criticism as benefiting the artist. Unlike Lerman, Lowe views criticism as a means to develop the audience.
The question that arises for me is: How do we combine Lowe’s method intended for the classroom and Lerman’s method intended for direct contact with the artist to create one effective process of criticism?
Maybe not the wisest choice so early in the semester, but I was inspired by something I read in Leah Lowe's article today and have decided to wander off the beaten path laid out for us by the blogger response prompt. Instead of tackling some of those issues presented in the prompt, I wanted to play a bit of Devil's Advocate and ask, "why so shy?" Over the past few days we have tried to define dramaturgy and have learned that it is not necessarily “definable,” or that its definition is nebulously multi-faceted. We have learned Liz Lerman’s open and open-ended method of dramaturgical inquiry. And Lowe demands a dramaturg’s work be “critically generous,” suggesting this approach should “free the students [of dramaturgy] from having to adopt an authoritative stance toward the production, and, hence, lessened [sic] their anxieties about having to provide a definitive interpretation of it” (145). While all of these methodologies seem to be successful in the dramaturgical world, I wonder if they don’t come at a cost as well. Are we losing some insight because we are nervous about making authoritative, firm declarations about theatrical productions? Is it bad to define dramaturgy and the works it inspires in a straight-forward fashion?
Now that we have passed two World Wars, both dominated by highly opinionated, headstrong world leaders, our global society seems to shy away from strict mandates, notions, or leaders. In our ever-elaborate design to become PC, we have attached ourselves to the idea that nothing is certain. Nowadays, 2 + 2 kind of equals 4; a spade is somewhat of a spade. And while such open-minded thinking has led to amazing advancements in civil rights, human understanding, and even religious doctrine, does it all come at a cost? Do we lose some other values and historical progress because of such a laissez-faire attitude about…everything?
I guess what I’m asking is, specific to dramaturgy, what’s wrong with certainties, definitions, opinions, authoritative stances? After all, a dramaturg gets paid for their work—shouldn’t they be able to define what it is exactly they are earning their money for? Again, please know that I am only trying to see what people think about this topic—I am not trying to be hostile in any way. Most likely I’m probably too much of an open-minded thinker (those artsy folk, you know?), and this debate stems from self-reflection about my own actions and behavior. Thank you for indulging me, and I sincerely apologize if I have managed to offend someone.
I interpreted Lowe's view of the audience to stress that an audience should be generous in its receptiveness and reaction. What I mean by this is that an audience provides a certain level of energy to the production. If an audience goes to a production with a closed mind, said audience cannot get anything out of the show, nor offer up energy. I think Lowe's understanding takes Lerman's understanding and applying it to the audience. In Lowe's understanding, an ideal audience would all see a show from the viewpoint and openess that Lerman suggests but without giving feedback. However, Lowe's viewpoint seems to stress a heavy relationship between the audience and the performers. Both understandings provide opportunity for criticism. Lowe's understanding benefits both the audience and performer by providing a more educated audience that is more able to appreciate a show. Lowe's doesn't provide for direct response to the performers with criticism, whereas Lerman's does. Lerman's provides for direct response to the performers through constructive criticism. A thought that came to mind when reading Lowe's was "if you're going to see a show, get your money's worth." Get your money's worth through participating.
I feel that in these articles Lowe and Lerman are trying to approach a similar outcome. Both are trying to create a world in which audiences can respond to art in a productive way. Both try to reject audience members immediate likes and dislikes of a piece of art and try to encourage questions and thoughtful responses. I also feel like both Lerman and Lowe have similar methods in critical discussions, Lerman just has a more overall picture of critiquing with an artist.
I think one of the bigger differences between these two articles is the focus on theater in Lowe's article versus looking at art as a whole in Lerman's article. Lowe mentions many things she wants her students to focus on that apply only to live art rather than any type of art. Lerman on the other hand has developed a method that could be used to critique any piece of art, live or not. I also agree with other people's posts in that Lerman has a focused critical discussion with the artist in the room while Lowe has purely educational discussions in the classroom. I also see Lowe's method as the responder in Lerman's method. I feel like Lerman has just developed a more overall method to critique art by adding the facilitator and artist.
A question I have about these articles is how would you as a teacher or facilitator approach a novice audience. I feel like in both articles the authors do not realistically look at how a novice audience would perform as responders. How would you approach those people who cannot determine what they feel and why they feel that way?
While I appreciate the concept of theatre as a kind of living organism consisting as much of its audience as those who perform, direct, light, design, and yes, that little known verb dramaturg, I do not foresee the concept of the critically generous spectator coming into practice in a significant way any time soon. The kind of theatre which David Roman and subsequently Lowe put forth seems to me very similar to Lessing's vision of what theatre "should" be, particularly the kind of criticism that is a "cooperative and collaborative engagement with a larger social mission.” Lowe and Lerman collide at the point in which audience and their critical involvement becomes “useful”-- to the production (particularly Lerman’s process), to the depth of the individual’s experience, to the collective who are engaged in “critical generosity” and response, and through these to some larger social change and “advancement” (As Dolan asserts, “theater can move us toward understanding the possibility of something better, can train our imaginations, inspire our dreams and fuel our desires in ways that might lead to incremental cultural change”). Yet if we think of an audience as “just an audience” and not agents intentionally participating in what is intended to be a critical dialogue (as in the case of Lerman’s critical response process), I feel that both Lowe and Lerman privilege an intellectually critical theatrical experience over a visceral one. Both assume a particular “role” or “intention” that theatre “should” but does not play in society. After all, is it the job of theatre to "teach" it's audience to think about performance in the way that theatre practitioners would like, i.e., critically? Should theatre necessarily "do" anything in particular? And if so, who gets to decide "what" that should be? And ultimately, are general audiences ever going to approach theatre in any way but their own?
One immediate similarity I noticed between Lowe's process of discussing a piece with her class, and the Lerman process, was the necessity of a mediator to frame the discussion. Another similarity was that each mediator asks for the responders to given detailed and enlightened feedback as apposed to a general "aesthetic" and immediate reaction. Lowe however understands the audience as a part of the performance, and sees their reactions and energy throughout as an essential part of the overall presentation. As Lerman's process seems to simply as the audience to understand the intent and look for areas of improvement, because the audience will be giving feedback to an unfinished project. So both methods ask the audience to understand the intent and take a deep look at what the performance/performers are trying to do but Lowe sees the audience as part of the performace and Lerman does not in force that idea.
The question that arises for me is how do you make a normal audience composed of non students seeing a show for the first time without any previous notions about the performance go into it with the same kind of open mind and feeling of ownership that the kids had when they went to see The Mystery of Irma Vep?
I see critical generosity as connecting to the role of the facilitator. Critical generosity is about uncovering the parts of the production that the audience may have questions on, instead of just what they liked or disliked about one aspect of the performance. It's about being active in their role as an audience member and interacting more with the production. The facilitator is supposed to be drawing these kinds of responses from the audience. In pursuing the "Critical Response Process," he or she is trying to elicit criticism without malice. It is the facilitator's job to link the audience and the artist, and in doing so, he or she is trying to inspire critical generosity.
I do wonder how critical generosity works in audiences with no theatre students or professionals. Do they behave the same way as the class in the Lowe article does? Does less experience in "doing" theatre make it easier or harder to be critically generous?
I see Lowe's quote as being about a finished product, a piece that is already being presented to a paying audience, where as Lerman's article is in reference to a work in progress. Because of this I don't see much connection in the two.
An audience that is viewing a live performance can only give two kinds off feedback, negative or positive. It is true that the performer can see what worked and didn't work due to the reactions of said audience, but it isn't quite the same as Lerman's steps.
I see Lerman's approach to be the same as the critiques given in art classes. I see her approach is used in instances where the work isn't quite praise worthy and nobody wants to say anything bad, so the professor starts to say nice things and then talk about ways in which it can be improved.
I do agree that the audience shapes the performance and that their input is critical of the success of the piece, regardless of brilliance and efforts of the artist minds who created it.
The question this comparison brings up is who is worthy of giving criticism and on the same level who's critical analysis do you ignore and who's do you take to heart. I think that can sometimes be hard for the artist, especially when the criticism is negative.
Though the two approach response in different manners (one speaking of direct contact with the responder and the artist and the other of a classroom response of a production) they seem to aim for the same concept; Lowe speaks vehemently about working to instill critical generosity in her theater students where Lerman gives a How-To on being a courteous critic.
It seems to me that both writers are attempting to create a stronger, yet gentler, critic out of audiences and from this approach, both Lowe’s and Lerman’s idea coincide beautifully.
In reading these articles, I asked myself if these are really ideas that should be instilled in all audience members; and I strongly believe that they aren’t.
The critiques I receive when I am with an acting coach or director are there to help fine tune what I already have, whereas the opinions from less experienced theater practitioners have given me the most insight. I know that the performer I am today is owing to the critiques I received from the Joe Shmoe’s of the world, the fact that they lack the critical generosity that Lowe and Lerman seem to think is necessary in an audience member leaves them with nothing but a truly pure observation. Sure harsh criticisms can be painful to hear, but sometimes, big changes can't happen if the performer doesn't believe they need them. From my perspective and training, a truly fantastic performer can please all audiences; therefore, all audiences’ opinions are of equal importance. And it is with this is mind that I come to the conclusion that in the grand scheme of things, Lowe’s and Lermans’s attempts to create the perfect audience member is obsolete.
However, because I am a theater student, Lowe and Lerman’s words are enlightening as well as inspiring, and give me the incentive to make an honest effort to reshape the way I approach giving a critique.
-Amber Lynn Justmann
Lowe’s understanding and encouragement of the role of the active audience in theatre work complements Lerman’s critical response process for the artist. While Lerman’s process gives responders the right vocabulary to discuss the art civilly and neutrally, Lowe’s “critical generosity” puts responders in a particular mindset to begin the discussion. It adds another step to Lerman’s response process: making the audience critical of its own response. So the questions that first arrive after seeing a performance should be: How have I responded to this art? Okay, and why am I responding this way? Okay, then why did the artist choose to do that? Every person considers his or her initial response before engaging in a critical discussion, which defines for the audience member the framework through which he or she has been engaging the art piece. Certainly, this self-awareness will illuminate critical discussions and start them off from a more enlightened position, offering a better response. Asking why the artist made the choices that most affected an audience member’s response can engage a more mellifluous exploration of the “interpretive possibilities of a given performance” (Lowe, 148).
A work of theatre art is unfinished without an audience. More than anywhere else, the art lives in each member of an audience, and is completed in each of their unique experiences of the piece. I was struck towards the end of the Lowe article by a quote the author had thrown in from Susan Bennett’s Theatre Audiences: that audiences have “the potential to reshape initial decoding of the production” (Bennett in Lowe, 149). This is the final stage of the art, which has continued to grow and percolate in the audience after the curtain is drawn. Discussions grounded in the vocabulary and demeanor suggested by Lerman’s critical response process and in Lowe’s concept of critical generosity help us understand the piece but also help us understand how and why we understood the piece that way.
When reading the Critical Response Process I felt that the article was informative but I personally did not care for the format that is demanded in the process of offering one’s critique. In the highest respect for diplomacy, the process is overwhelming and unnecessary to the extent in which it is advised to put into practice. As an educated audience member of any art form I pray that it is a known fact that you do not simply force your opinions onto an artist’s work. Common courtesy and respect for art grants the generosity that is so highly spoken of in the Leah Lowe reading.
I much proffered the approach in which Lowe takes toward criticism. I enjoy the idea of stepping into the shoes of the artist and allowing our immediate responses to take a “back seat to speculation about the production’s aim” Lowe 148.
That being said I do think there is a very important aspects of criticism that is approached by Liz Lerman, which is the need to critique in a manor that allows forward motion of the artists work. With the knowledge of being generous and the understanding of the necessity for growth that are brought together by these two readings I believe I have a better understanding of how to approach a future critique.
This is Jessica Stennett's
One of the strongest common threads that I found between Leah Lowe’s understanding of the role of an audience and Liz Lerman’s critical response process was this idea that the audience is highly influenced by their own personal experience and cultural background. The way that each audience member reacts and connects with a production will differ from that of the person sitting next to them, because of the great rift of having experienced two separate lives. With this knowledge the way that Lowe would approach a class discussion or a facilitator in Lerman’s process guides a group of responders can have an enormous effect on how the audience will ultimately come to understand and appreciate a production.
While Lowe’s approach to the response of an audience was focused more in classroom discussions and essays in which the students would reflect on the production as a whole. Lerman’s reflected more on an audience’s ability to respond directly to a performer. And yet both greatly stressed this idea of generosity. Lowe addresses this idea of generosity by encouraging her students to recognize what biases they may already have going into a performance and being able to formulate an opinion apart from this negative force. A facilitator in Lerman’s response process also attempts to provide the audience with an ability to formulate some generosity in their critique of the performer, by having them form neutral questions so as to allow for discussion as to why the artist made a particular choice instead of just immediately ruling that it was a horrible one. Lowe sums up their efforts beautifully when she states “In contrast to an audience that merely judges, the audience that begins to emerge from our discussions is one composed of active agents with modes of perception and multiple social contexts that inform their aesthetic criteria” (143).
While reading I found myself realizing just how huge of an effect Post-Show and Pre-Show discussions can have on an audience’s perception of a production. I began to question my feelings on the outcomes of having such opportunities for response. On the one hand I think that such discussions are an excellent way for an audience to truly appreciate where a performer or production team is coming from and to grasp a deeper understanding of performance and its efficaciousness. But on the other hand I wonder if by enabling such discussions and the ability to change an audience’s natural reaction to a production if we are then manipulating their response to one fashioned more favorably towards the production. And if we are shaping their response where does the line of too much manipulation exist? I think of the example given by Lowe of the performance art piece that she took her students too. In some ways their post-show discussions were good because they forced the students to consider why the artists made those specific modes of performance to tell their story but one could say that by forcing the students to reconsider they were no longer being allowed to react to the piece and formulate their own opinion but were being forced to appreciate the performance to some extent. I know it is a huge debate that one can easily get lost in but I found the fact that I even had these notions quite illuminating.
I liked how Lowe reminded me of how the audience’s input on a show can be just as important as the input that comes from the director, actors, and designers. I think we often forget while in the mist of what is usually a hectic production process who and why we are doing a show. Lowe comments on how important it is to get responses from the audience and that their participation and overall satisfaction is important. I feel like this article was pretty straightforward. Lowe clearly presents her option on how discussion feedback is important for a production is vital. I pretty much understood what she was saying even though I am not sure how as a lighting designer I can use audience feedback. Maybe I could get feedback like “It was dark” or something but I think the audience can give very useful feedback about whether or not they understand the concept or message that a show is trying to create.
Post a Comment