Today's seminar was the culmination of a multi-session series on positioning oneself within their practice and desire to teach. Ten students in three groups prepared and presented the types of actor training institutions they would establish if ideal conditions were met (if, for instance, money was no object). They sought to offer curricula that were well-rounded, grounded in theory and proactive towards producing capable, industry-ready performers.
Notes Verbatim:
Thorough introductions to the plan for today's session right off the bat. My own appearance is a helpful segue into learning objectives.
Despite the low lighting (broken, not intentional) IM makes good eye contact. Tone is warm and inviting. He knows everyone's names and knows at least something specific about them.
The interesting theme we see in this building: when you need reference materials for pedagogy-focused students, they are often taken from in-house. We learn how other classes are being taught, how we as an institution are guiding and even manipulating other groups of students in the same building. Does this serve to other-ise the "rest of them"? Do students in teacher-training classes feel privileged in some way to gain insight into how their teachers and other students' teachers think? That they have insider knowledge, or are "in on it"?
Semicircle to start, IM speaking. Briefing and provoking discussion shortly in the session. The students are planning, expecting to engage with discussion in their breakout groups shortly. There is momentum (potential energy?) building up here.
Ethical questions have underscored earlier discussion, and may even form a framework for today:
art vs paying the bills, which is not to say art vs craft, because it is art and craft.
Thoughts: Does anyone here expect to make money from acting? We expect to be paid to teach actors, but is it ethical to pay someone to prepare others to do unpaid activity, to enter into an unpaid profession?
Listening and nodding: what does this mean? I am listening, I am understanding, I want you to hurry up, I want you to go into more detail? Yes I get it, but please continue anyway?
Periodic interruption of group discussion to gently (or even abruptly) redirect conversation of small groups back to what we need to be discussing.
I can't actually hear the content of the discussion. It is all noise except the American who speaks loudly and clearly even when just nattering about nothing. Americans are inherently disruptive?
Almost all students are from different countries and have different levels of confidence when they speak.
6 women, 4 men, 2 quite mature students (mid 50's?) at least mature for an MA. Age range potentially 22-60. 5 East Asian students, 1 Indian, 1 British (present), 1 American. American easily loudest and most overtly confident--damn stereotypes! How does having one in your class affect your learning if you are not American and your culture is more demure?
(mmm, warm radiator on my back.)
Preparation and lack thereof is inclusive here, students and tutor. Students went to the wrong room out of habit. Everyone was late. Equipment was not booked. Paper and markers had to be collected. It is the last week of term--no one was judging one another for these tiny infractions. The atmosphere is warm, relaxed and productive. Everyone appears to feel intellectually and emotionally safe.
Small group engagement: the loud, giggly group gathered (Telly Group) around the tutor. How does this impact discussion among other groups? Table Group doesn't appear to notice but Chair Group noticeably puts their heads closer together and speaks somewhat louder to compensate. Eyes are cut at the noisy...American. Yep. Damn, I could write an essay on this. Was I the same as a student?
Question of note-taking as a secretarial function and learning support. More women are writing than men: is this a gender-stereotyped behaviour? Or do these people write everything down to help them remember?
Student presentations: Chair group: pitching a class
Spiral learning approach: multi-disciplinary. Boarding and training--start with life skills for young learners. (Where did this idea come from?) Very full-on programme including highly physical and textbook-style classes; theory. How relevant are these concepts outside of a BA? In terms of pure actor training, does anthropology truly hold relevance? Or is this more relevant, beyond the ethics of multicultural and extracultural performance, to directors, casting directors and producers? (Do BA-TP Technical and Production Management students have ethics and anthropology classes? They should.) This school sounds blisteringly expensive, logistically overwhelming and ultimately irrelevant to most students. In terms of asking actors to run lights--how is this relevant to their career development if they're just preparing themselves for the financially unsustainable world of am-dram?
Constructive feedback, critical engagement: the students are using polite innuendos for "I like, I don't like." A mobile classroom is in itself site-responsive. Interesting.
IM briefs other students about what to expect during the first presentation to make it clear to the first group that they are not being unfairly dug-into, while also structuring the rest of the session for the next student groups. Three layers to this comment: I'm asking for clarity, I will ask you for clarity too; relax, this is not indicative of my opinions of your ideas or method of presentation. IM is seated among the students, not snuggled up next to anyone but not particularly distant either. The students around him are attuned to him and want his attention, but not in a disruptive way.
Global Citizenship: is this a current buzzword? Is this to fight against Trumpistan, populist and nationalist identities? We are making a statement at this time about the identity with which we identify as an institution and as individuals, and no, we will not be playing along with any isolationist rhetoric.
Sound dampening of this space: creates odd deadening, distancing of speakers based on relationships with corners and windows. This is a purpose-built rehearsal space!! AARGH!
Responses to limitations of space: The lights are squiffy. So we present under the brightest light and sit as audience under the dimmer lights. The lights still need to be fixed--contact Tony, surely this has been noted before?
Dim Out Out
Dim Med Med
Bright Dim Out
Door Wall Door
Cultural engagement whirlwind tour: Too little time; Superficiality and Appropriation vs Depth, Learning, Appreciation. Del'Arte California: similar idea school. ITI Singapore, Asad Singapore? Models to be studied. ISTA: International School of Theatre Anthropology. Travelling University of Theatre Exchange (now defunct).
IM is honest and clear even when it hurts: The Dangers of Appropriation. You run the risk of making a franken-performer who only apes other cultures, borrows, rather than developing herself taking inspiration from these, or developing within one or a few. Whatever speaks to them. Provides points in which to develop thinking: re-direct forward engagement, if they intend to engage further.
Fight against box-ticking: personal loathing subtly revealed. How perfunctory is our paperwork here at school?
Observational aside: several students in this class speak with distinct accents but they do appear to understand the language of tuition. Does this represent progress among the MA courses or does this merely reflect the scope of recruitment for this specific course?
Are actors the best people to theorise about and teach engagement with stage management, lighting and production? Why is lighting many actors' mental default for "the rest of the show" but props and costumes are secondary? What is the relational flow from performer to each other department?
"We Literally didn't site this geographically."
"That's okay, let's have a go now." -subtle dismissal of self-deprecating impulse that also serves to promote momentum forward. I'm not judging or marking you downward, let's take this as an opportunity to discuss this among the wider group. Everyone is now invited to come on board.
This class is picking ideas to celebrate and explore further from the textbook we have fought with all term. Are they engaging critically with selected training theories, or just listing them and demonstrating that they understand them? No. They are specifically referencing the idea that they are employing a training technique, not teaching the theory of said technique (paper-based understanding). Learning by doing, just doing and not worrying about the desired outcomes identified by the theorizer? Are actors recipe-hungry?
How do we site thinking and critical engagement within the experiential learning structure?
Three different presentation styles employed here: Chair Group: Write As We Talk. Desk Group: Refer to pre-written (paper, prepared in class). Telly Group: refer to multimedia PPT and video with sound (ehhh?) pre written yesterday by one tech-engaged student (who not only particularly enjoys this sort of thing, but feels that he thinks best when doing it), performance-shaped presentation. Guidance supplied by tutor for audience thinking as well as encouragement for presenters. Remember why they are presenting to you: this is for feedback, not assessment.
We are gathering under the lights like mole people.
Limits on time: students respond to this limit in different ways. Some are fearful, some relaxed--some fear they will go over, others fear they do not have enough to say to fill in the time.
Telly Group is struggling with a lot of internal clashes: one student really wants to sell the fact that they don't have a plan, and that's the plan: they are artists. Another has gone into detailed, over-considered administrative work and planning, but has no idea of the desired over-arching structure or rationale for the school. Why do they feel the need to engage in this way? Is this presentation relevant to another class? This group has put days of consideration into this, while the other groups have only had a few hours at best. What was the different motivation for this group?
Other thoughts: Why is actor training history limited to the past hundred years or less? But theatre history is considered ancient and richly studied, despite the fact that for most areas of the world all we have is ruined buildings and a few plays? How is fifty years of Stanislavsky relevant to ancient Greece? Why do we try to imply that the vast majority of theatre history is in any way connected to modern performance?
Why don't these Asian students have any awareness of Asian or Eastern actor training technique? Have these English-speaking students had a western-facing education? What did they study at undergrad? Does Singapore engage with Chinese performance at all? How do get to become bilingual in China? Japan? India? Why does this class not engage with the cultures of the students in the room? Stanislavsky. Lecoq. Meisner. Gretowski. Nobody relevant to Asia, nobody relevant to any layer of history deeper than the Golden Age of Cinema. Is there older, documented actor training technique? Named? Or theatre- or dramatist- specific? Why have I not heard of anything besides bunraku?
Do we want to be engaged with the community around the theatre school, or is this a monastery? Mmmm. Universities. The best way to pretend to give back while only serving to market yourself.
End of class. Summary. Response. Space to decompress, to breathe.
