Okay, now that’s done…

What’s with the attacking instead of discussing? If Anonymous really wants there to be a discourse on this kind of thing, then why shut it down by mud slinging? Why attack MK’s thoughts?

A discussion with dissenting opinions is an interesting one. The attack on someone, and then that person trying to defend themselves, not so interesting. And, honestly, for me, all the ideas get lost, because the attack is at the forefront.

It’s kind of like the difference of watching a debate and an argument. A debate intrigues me, makes me want to know more, draws me in. An argument is uncomfortable and makes me want to shrink back.

This kind of has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I just found myself wondering what the point was.

Okay, I’ll go back into my little corner and try to be inconspicuous to avoid having things hurled at me…

And here.

Thank god for the Guardian.

At this point, I’d like to add that:
I love everything that everyone is doing and I think you’re all brilliant.

Beyond that, I think it’d be fun to talk about topics/issues that are being written about in general kind of way. Trends and such; and which trends are having success. (And, whether or not we think they’re good for theatre.)

BTW: You ever come up with an idea for a play — about something so wonderfully original, or about a topic that’s been so woefully ignored in recent times that you’re sure to be recognized as an international genius for focussing on it — and you go write it and produce it… only to find another company producing a different play about the exact same thing on the season calendar???

ME TOO!!!

Oh, and I’m also interested reading about different ways artists generate new content.

I’ll use an example. I was out with a couple of girlfriends, none of who are involved with the arts in any way. One started talking about how she loved Nuit Blanche because she could just engage with the art without being made to feel that she was stupid because she just didn’t understand it. She was surprised when I told her that it was all about how she was responding to the work, and that there was no right way to feel about it.

It feels to me that there is a distrust of the response of the non-artist public, a feeling that if they like it, it can’t be real art. And that’s what Anon’s response felt like to me. That if something touches the emotions it must be manipulative. Fraudulent. Yet it keeps getting produced, so obviously a lot of other people disagree.

Of course, I could turn this on its head because I feel that Phantom of the Opera is exactly that but millions of people disagree with me. However, I would never accuse them of group think. They respond to the outsider nature of the Phantom. And who am I to say that response is false?

i think the latest scrum does illustrate one of the issues with talking about what’s on stage, which is that negative feedback generally gets people’s back up and hurts their feelings…and we’re just talking about the production in general, not a particular production currently.

so we leave feedback to critics whom we have developed psychological tools to deal with…somewhat…also, i think in Canada its important to note that our public funding comes via arms-length peer review. so unless you are anonymous like anon, saying you didn’t like something has the potential to turn into you not liking the success rate of your future funding requests also.

And I stand by my argument that the play’s theme is about friendship. It seems to me that you’re the one looking at it from a self-referential perspective. I talked about what I personally liked about the play but my friends who saw it couldn’t care less about the Farm Show. They saw the actor character as the catalyst but it was the farmer characters they related to and wanted to learn more about.

As for it travelling, I’m using that to point out that it has universal appeal, that goes beyond the “self-referential” nature of so much of the theatre we create. I’m over the moon that something created in this community is having such an impact internationally, as that bolsters interest in the work that we do. I don’t see its success as a bad thing. But I’m guessing it’s not pure enough for you. I suppose you’ll be bashing Norm Foster next.

I didn’t present my opinions to get pissed all over. Maybe that’s why we don’t have these kinds of discussions.