When I was young, from time to time our family would have unexpected extra folk around at dinner time.
My mom was pretty unflappable. She didn't fuss or protest. She didn't worry aloud whether there would be "enough."
She'd have us set extra place settings. She'd stretch whatever main dish she was making, if she could- and she was expert at that.
And she would open applesauce.
Somehow, bringing out the applesauce- one extra offering on the table- made the plates still full even with smaller portions.
I wonder, what is your applesauce?
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
encouraging new artists
I went to a conference.
I went to two staged readings of new plays. Each play was the winner for its category, one for adults and one for high school students. The goal of the adult competition was the discovery, development and publicizing of worthy new plays and playwrights. Although a purpose for the high school competition was not given, one might assume similar goals.
For the high school student-playwright, the talk back went like this:
The moderator introduced the playwright after the staged reading. Then, the moderator gave the audience guidelines for response: First, give the playwright feedback about what is working, what you admire and like about the play. Then, give the playwright feedback about questions, what you wanted to know more about in the play. Next, give the playwright feedback about concerns or confusion, areas that you aren't certain about in the play. Finally, the playwright was invited to ask the audience or actors anything she wanted to know about their experiences.
Smart, huh?
Now the adult winner. Note that I said: winner. Award-winning. Selected as the WINNER, right?
The facilitator, also a playwright, first introduced the playwright and quoted a famous playwright (one she quoted frequently, as in "When I was working with Famous Playwright, he said...") as saying: the smartest person in the room is the writer.
Then she said "this is what is working: Good job, actors"
(and, the actors were uneven, but overall okay)
"Great directing"
(A. this was a staged reading- limited directing. B. the directing sucked. It was distracting to say the least about it)
"Now, comments on the play."
And the facilitator went on to state her opinion (liberally sprinkled with "I think we will all agree")- setting the table for the audience- that the play didn't work. That this award- WINNING play had flaws right and left. Mind you, she contradicted herself in her criticisms several times- that the play had no conflict/then the play had a great conflict but it wasn't resolved; that the play didn't tell you enough about something/that the play told you too much about that same something.
Meanwhile, in between belittling the play, she would say, "the play is lovely," "the relationships are lovely."
All while the playwright is sitting ONSTAGE RIGHT NEXT TO THE FACILITATOR, unable to respond to these comments.
When the audience was finally allowed to respond, predictably, they echoed some of the "expert's" opinions.
The WINNING playwright left the session seriously questioning whether or not to continue writing.
This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
I was appalled. Horrified. Angry.
I am grateful that the high school student was not savaged in this way- however, is this any way to treat our best and our brightest? Is this any way to recognize a WINNER?
I went to two staged readings of new plays. Each play was the winner for its category, one for adults and one for high school students. The goal of the adult competition was the discovery, development and publicizing of worthy new plays and playwrights. Although a purpose for the high school competition was not given, one might assume similar goals.
For the high school student-playwright, the talk back went like this:
The moderator introduced the playwright after the staged reading. Then, the moderator gave the audience guidelines for response: First, give the playwright feedback about what is working, what you admire and like about the play. Then, give the playwright feedback about questions, what you wanted to know more about in the play. Next, give the playwright feedback about concerns or confusion, areas that you aren't certain about in the play. Finally, the playwright was invited to ask the audience or actors anything she wanted to know about their experiences.
Smart, huh?
Now the adult winner. Note that I said: winner. Award-winning. Selected as the WINNER, right?
The facilitator, also a playwright, first introduced the playwright and quoted a famous playwright (one she quoted frequently, as in "When I was working with Famous Playwright, he said...") as saying: the smartest person in the room is the writer.
Then she said "this is what is working: Good job, actors"
(and, the actors were uneven, but overall okay)
"Great directing"
(A. this was a staged reading- limited directing. B. the directing sucked. It was distracting to say the least about it)
"Now, comments on the play."
And the facilitator went on to state her opinion (liberally sprinkled with "I think we will all agree")- setting the table for the audience- that the play didn't work. That this award- WINNING play had flaws right and left. Mind you, she contradicted herself in her criticisms several times- that the play had no conflict/then the play had a great conflict but it wasn't resolved; that the play didn't tell you enough about something/that the play told you too much about that same something.
Meanwhile, in between belittling the play, she would say, "the play is lovely," "the relationships are lovely."
All while the playwright is sitting ONSTAGE RIGHT NEXT TO THE FACILITATOR, unable to respond to these comments.
When the audience was finally allowed to respond, predictably, they echoed some of the "expert's" opinions.
The WINNING playwright left the session seriously questioning whether or not to continue writing.
This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
I was appalled. Horrified. Angry.
I am grateful that the high school student was not savaged in this way- however, is this any way to treat our best and our brightest? Is this any way to recognize a WINNER?
Monday, April 16, 2012
pout face
There are days when I just want to take all my marbles and go home.
Or maybe go to Australia.
This is one of those days.
Or maybe go to Australia.
This is one of those days.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
to to to DO, to to to DO!
Somehow today I will be:
Later:
grading- done
prepping- mostly done
emailing students- done
applying for job/kicked to tomorrow
writing play/kicked to tomorrow (which is THE DEADLINE)
Oh, and still doing laundry
goodnight, goodnight, before it becomes tomorrow.
Still later- as in, ten days later:
1. I did the grading. Now I have stacks of new grading, as final papers have been turned in and final exams are currently being taken.
2. prepping did get finished, and in time for classes.
3. I have emailed the failing students. Some of them twice. Now I'm done. Failing or passing, their choice.
4. job application: done. Getting the job or not: their choice.
5. ten minute play: written and submitted.
And I am getting back to the blogs. OKAY!
- finishing the last little bits of grading
- prepping for tomorrow's classes
- emailing my failing students with their last warning
- applying for a job
- writing a ten minute play or two
Later:
grading- done
prepping- mostly done
emailing students- done
applying for job/kicked to tomorrow
writing play/kicked to tomorrow (which is THE DEADLINE)
Oh, and still doing laundry
goodnight, goodnight, before it becomes tomorrow.
Still later- as in, ten days later:
1. I did the grading. Now I have stacks of new grading, as final papers have been turned in and final exams are currently being taken.
2. prepping did get finished, and in time for classes.
3. I have emailed the failing students. Some of them twice. Now I'm done. Failing or passing, their choice.
4. job application: done. Getting the job or not: their choice.
5. ten minute play: written and submitted.
And I am getting back to the blogs. OKAY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)