Choreographer, performer, educator and McArthur Genius Grant recipient Liz Lerman developed the Critical Response Process to enable "a group of people to uncover their various aesthetic and performance values and, by being patient, apply them to a creative work-in-progress in a way that pushes the artist's thinking forward."
Given that we all shift through different roles that are part of the Critical Response Process, which role do you feel is most comfortable for you? Which is most challenging? How do you use your dramaturgical sensibility in either/all three?
Think about the workshop held in the collaborative play development class. How does the process work of the workshop reflect the steps of the critical response process? Do you see possibilities for the critical response process to aid the class as they continue to devise as an ensemble over the course of the semester? Reflect, too, on your own critical voice during the workshop? Were there ways you did engage in the steps of the critical response process?
6 comments:
This reading was really interesting to me because I am not directly familiar with the process, but I have seen the steps and roles used in a variety of ways. I am fairly comfortable in all the roles, but I am probably most comfortable in role of the responder. I think that I tend to phrase my opinions in a very constructive way already because when I am in these situations I think about the feelings of the Artist. I wouldn’t want someone attacking me with opinions that are not phrased in a constructive manner, so I try to do the same for the person whose work I am responding too. This being said, I find myself most uncomfortable in the position of the Artist because I often fear criticism that is not being directed constructively. I have been in situations where I have been “attacked” as an Artist, and not given the chance to build on or change things. I have also been in really constructive situations. What worries me as the Artist in the situation is the unknown that is coming at me. I don’t know what to expect and that makes me uncomfortable.
I think this system could be really helpful in their collaborative play development class as they continue on this semester. It seems like the class is very open and they seem to be able to give each other feedback. This sort of system in a classroom setting could make the teacher the facilitator, and the artist and responders the class members. In terms of the workshop, I didn’t really think about this when we were participating because I had not read the article, but from what I remember, they structured the feedback section in the order of the process. They would say something about the story and action, then the “artist” would tend to say/question something about the piece, giving the rest of the class the opportunity to ask questions and give opinions. I was in the responder chair, as I did not participate in the activity, which I think gave me a different perspective than those participating and responding. I was not concerned with my own work since I didn’t have any, thus giving me the chance to pay more attention to stories I was hearing.
For me as a painter I feel that I am most acquainted with the Artist role. I also feel that the Facilitator role would be the hardest. It is like having no opinion or feeling towards what either party has to say, yet making sure what they say is progressive and not hurtful to the other side. I think however the dramaturgical sensibility is most used in the facilitator role. There you use all the different nooks and crannies of the conversation to move it in a direction that will prove meaningful.
During the collaborative play development class I think that most of it was spent in the "Artist" phase. Spending the time having the individuals find their gesture and there story and working on how it will be presented. Then after each individual performance the Facilitators, Gwen and Mary, would ask the rest of the class what they thought of the performance and how the gesture fit with he story. I think that using the class as the responder was the best part of the process. This allowed everyone to come together and see if it actually worked based on the responses of the class. We didn't follow the steps of this critical resonance exactly but I think that we were able to get the same effects. If those performers were able to go back and adjust after the responses from the class I think that there would be much improvement.
For me, the role that I feel the most comfortable with is the facilitator. Giving or receiving feedback can be difficult in either case. The facilitator seems like the more neutral figure within this process. It seems as though it is their chief goal to use rhetoric for the purpose of pushing the discussion along and keeping it on a positive track. As the Critical Response Process illustrates, it is the responsibility of all three of the participants to word their responses in certain ways to provoke other responses but it seems as though the Facilitator does this the most and leads the discussion. The facilitator actually seems to me to be the role of the dramaturge during discussions. He or she is responsible for leading the discussion and steering it in positive directions. The most challenging role to me seems to be the responder. All three roles have their pros and cons but something that I would worry about is being able to provide useful feedback for the artist on the spot. As this process suggests, it is important to word things properly so your feedback will be helpful and will not hinder others. Dramaturgy sensibility would be useful in all three of these positions. I think a dramaturge has a good sense on what questions to ask and how to steer towards the answers. As a facilitator, that would seem like their prime objective. For a responder, they would know how to word their feedback so it would help steer the artist to the answers that they are looking for. Then as the artist, your dramaturge sensibility will help you understand the feedback and pull from that the useful information that you may need.
The process work of the workshop reflects the steps of the Critical Response Process by the way the students presented the movement with their stories and then having the class give feedback on their work. Usually the instructor would represent the facilitator while the artist listened to the responders. The responses were also not generic and the audience actually explained what the liked about the work and how it worked with their stories. I can easily see how this process can aid the class in future projects. By everyone being able to see work, give feedback, and listen to others feedback, it helps their own work grow as they learn. During the workshop, I did not really practice my own critical voice but now I wish I had. I did however feel as though I learned a lot from listening to the process and hearing other people feedback.
There were a few points in the reading that I truly familiarized with. As an artist, I understand how certain questionary forms of opinion can be offensive or one-sided. Neutral questions tend to be the best form for finding an artist's room for improvement/constructive criticism. As much as I love positive feedback, it is almost like a dangerous filler, generally speaking. Constructive criticism only leads to development so an artist has to realize that one can only improve, learn from their mistakes and take advice in the most useful way (on a personal level).
Toward the end of the reading, I noticed how I incorporate opinion into every aspect of my dialogue and life. It's actually a behavior I flourish in. However, using opinion can sound very ignorant and close-minded if it is not continued with invested questions. I will always continue to learn how to ask respectable questions to an artist without sounding partisan.
Having read this article before, I found that reading it through a dramaturgical lens provided a new understanding of each position in the critical response process. Personally, my comfort level in any given position depends on the context within which the process is being utilized. There are also circumstances where I am comfortable in multiple roles. In the design field, I find that I am comfortable in all 3, yet in politics I could never be a facilitator because I have incredibly strong opinions and do not have the capability to refrain from biasing my questions. Of the 3, I find that I am the most challenged by the role of facilitator.
In regards to the workshop with the collaborative play development class, I was definitely out of my element as I took on the role of artist in that process. The class period perfectly reflected the steps in the critical response process, and perfectly filled the roles presented by Lerman. Gwynn and Mary were the facilitators, the CPD class were the artists, and the Dramaturgy class were the responders. The facilitators and artists also doubled as responders for this process. I think this process will be incredibly beneficial to the class’ development of an ensemble, because I think it’ll create a foundation of collaborative work, a vital part of ensemble work.
As being a performer in a seculed, private space, you almost develop a keen insight into the shape of your audience as soon as you stand up before them. In this workshop there was a silent anxiety with finding the performer's gestures and determining its use in relation to the story. Suddenly the performer no longer feels like this is an open environment to learn, but rather are concerned with satisfying the needs of the audience. In that brief one-minute performance, the responder shifts in creating a piece which satisfies not only their colleagues, but themselves and their insecurities.
What I appreciated most from this shifting aspect of performing and responding, is that the facilitator would begin the responses with the performer's immediate reaction to the experience. The performer had experienced a performance completely seperate from the spectators. The Critical Response states that the artist has the same questions as the audience, so there is the opportunity to have a more honest discussion when it begins from the objective perspective of the one who witnessed it internally.
In terms of how this workshop will mature the class into an ensemble, I believe that the continuous shift I mentioned earlier about performing and responding will colletively cultivate an honest assessment of where people are most comfortable with how to tell a simple story. Being able to adapt to two foreign pieces (the gesture and the story) can truly assess how adaptable a person is willing to conform themselves to the mercy to a audience-responding art. Considering possibilities was preached in the Critical Response as an open window for a performer to connect with spectators, or fellow performers, in a manor which encourages shared ideas and artistry...and that is somewhat a foundation for a successful ensemble.
Post a Comment