As a working theatre
artist, my philosophy on teaching is deeply intertwined with my philosophy
about theatre as an institution. Thus, let me quickly outline my thoughts on
what makes good theatre.
First, good theatre
is truly collaborative. By this I mean it is more than a few artists coming
together to make one artistic piece. True theatrical collaboration is about a
few artists coming together to influence each other’s work and input in
creating one cohesive artistic piece. In order to do this, a scenic designer
must not only welcome suggestions from the lighting designer about, say, what
material is used to build the set in order to facilitate an interesting look
scenically and through light, but also know enough to suggest specific
alternative footwear to the costume designer if the deck poses trouble for an
actor who is supposed to appear barefoot. Furthermore, I believe truly
collaborative theatre allows the designers to work alongside, rather than
subordinately, with the director so that all ideas can and will be considered.
Second, good theatre is more than the final product and the bottom line. While it is important to create a product that will garner recognition enough to get the proverbial “bums in seats,” theatre cannot be an example of “the ends justify the means.” Theatre is an art form that has allowed countless playwrights, directors, designers, actors, and audience members explore society from new and engaging ways. When we answer “Why are we doing this show?” with answers like “It is a crowd-pleaser” or “It will make money” we are not doing the art justice. As theatre artists we must engage with the production from start to finish, finding the important reasons to tell any story, from Oklahoma! to Orpheus Descending, from The Cherry Orchard to The Little Mermaid. Furthermore, theatre is a living, breathing art-form. It changes in the design, rehearsal, and performance process because of the many different people—including the audience—that are a part of making it happen. Good theatre and good theatre-artists recognize that not only are the public performances important, but also the journey from conceptualization to realization.
Lastly, good
theatre is vital to our society. Sadly, theatre’s popularity is rapidly
dwindling in the face of the instant, often-free media offered up by our
ever-wired life in the twenty-first century. Too often theatres face concerns
over the rising age of their dwindling audiences. Nevertheless, as theatre
artists we know that theatre is important. Why else would we be in the business?
But, more than that, good theatre is important. As hinted above, it is easy to
look at theatre as merely a money-making operation and pander to many
audience’s desires to be transported from their mundane lives by special
effects and happy endings. While there are some truly remarkable plays and
productions that do happen to have those elements, more often than not, much of
that theatre is Peter Brook’s definition of deadly theatre. Historically
accurate, devoid-of-life productions of Shakespeare for the Canon’s sake.
Ridiculous farces that make the audience laugh but leave them with hardly a new
thought in their head about life. But good theatre, vital theatre, is more
often the spark that reignites the people’s passion for our art. Productions of
August: Osage County, Ruined, Next to Normal, Spring
Awakening, Rent, The Lion King,
to name a few, all brought audiences back to the theatre through gripping
stories or amazing theatrical magic (or both). And all of those productions of
good theatre proved to artists and audiences alike that good theatre is a
vital, unmatched way of dissecting and understanding our world. Only through
this live, collaborative art form can the audience commune in real-time with
living, breathing, nearby people on and off stage. Through these types of productions
theatre becomes, even for an instant, important again.
Now, how does this
translate into my teaching philosophy? Do I envision myself using my role as
teacher and mentor to grandstand about these points on theatre? No. My passion
to be an artist who makes and takes part in good theatre drives me to be an
inspiring and demanding teacher of theatre. I want to give my students the
tools to define good theatre for themselves and know how they can contribute to
that theatre if they choose to pursue it as a career.
Theatre as a
collaborative art form is most directly applicable to my work as a teacher.
While I was more than content to work solo on projects during my time as a
student, group work and discussions allowed me to grow the most as a critical
thinker and artist. As a teacher I translate my desire to bounce ideas off of
people into encouragement of a collaborative way of learning and, thus,
creating art. As a design professor I envision projects that mimic the
collaborative process of designing with 2 (or more) other designers and even a
director. This teaches students about the process of designing, and encourages
a growth in communication and public-speaking skills. It also can create the
space for students to learn about very important traits as a collaborative
artist: humility and compromise. Undergraduate theatre students often have the
most exciting ideas about art (because they don’t know what is “impossible”
yet) but also have the most challenges either overcoming or building up their
egos. A good theatre teacher will nurture the exciting possibilities that the
untested artist brings to the table while identifying which students need to
learn how to step back and those that need encouragement to step forward in
sharing ideas about a given project.
My second assertion
that theatre is more than the final product and the bottom line is more in line
with my philosophy on (theatre) education as a whole. It speaks to the question
of what is more important, the process or the product. Many of the educational
institutions I have had contact with have struggled with this concept. It is
easy to say on paper that the theatre department is committed to the process of
putting on a show, but, when push comes to shove, the product takes precedence
over the process because of ticket sales or institutional oversight. I firmly
believe that my role as a theatre teacher and mentor is to highlight the
process as a learning opportunity for the student as student and as artist. In her book The Creative Habit, Twyla Tharp asserts
that the best productions for her have been critical failures because she
learned the most from them as an artist. Through critical evaluation of the
artistic work during and after the process, I wish to instill in young artists
critical thinking both for their own, their peers’, and their mentors’ work. As
well as encourage them to see that the act of making art is as vital as the
final artistic product.
Furthermore, as a
woman in a male-dominated area of theatre with an underprivileged childhood, I
personally have struggled to define what the process of design is for me. As a
teacher I not only expose my students to the traditional design process as discussed
by the forefathers of design (Robert Edmund Jones, Adolph Appia, Lee Simonson),
but also encourage students to define their own process based on how they
artistically interpret and experience space. During my time at UNCG I was
fortunate enough to read and discuss new design pedagogy, including that of
veteran theatre professor Richard Isaacks of UT Austin. He has challenged the
script as the sole jumping off point for design, instead creating exercises
that force students to create the visual narrative and then apply it to the
written word. As an artist I’ve challenged myself to break out of the process
in this way with great and eye-opening results. As a teacher I aim to challenge
my students to approach design from every angle and to question not only what
they are choosing but why they are choosing it to represent the world of the
play. This ties directly into my paper on the intersection of feminist theory
and the design process, which is less about a gendered approach to design but
more about the individual’s response and synthesis of their world into the
picture created for the stage and what role that plays in creating meaning for
the actors and the audience.
