File this under "Oh, come on"

R&J protested in Tennessee

No, I'm not talking about Colarco's adapatation with prep school boys playacting as the two lovers.

Not even talking about the Zeffirelli film with a nude scene with a 15-year-old actress.

No, rather The Star is reporting that a Toronto school-touring production of Romeo and Juliet was almost cancelled due to a group of parents who disapproved of the show's sexuality.

From the article:

... a woman who identified herself as Val, a home-school teacher from Hermitage, "struggled being here with my son. The sexuality was too much. Our children need to be more pure."

And, I guess, "several other teachers echoed her opinion."

Now, I haven't seen the production but I'm reasonably assured that all the actors keep their clothes on.

So, does that mean these folks are objecting to the script? That was written in 1595 (give or take)?

If so, kudos to the ensemble for an obviously vivid and faithful interpretation of the Bard's text.

To those teachers and parents of those oh-so-pure children... You do know that this is what your kids are listening to, don't you:

I have great friends

All of a sudden my email was filled with Facebook notifications

I import this blog to my Facebook profile automatically. Generally, if I do an interesting post, I'll get more comments on FB than on my blog. But, in most cases, there's not too much activity on either format.

That is, until Wednesday's post was imported to my profile.

Below are some of the responses to that post. I feel like I need to share them with the wider blogosphere because 1) they reminded me that I'm not alone with these feelings, and 2) other artists feeling the same shit can benefit from my friends' wisdom.

I just wanted to thank you all for reading and responding, and how much it meant to me.

Cheers!

might need a good vacation somewhere new and something that will inspire - India maybe... become a yogi..:)

Dig a new well my friend.

Can I just say I relate? You're right, getting stuck in the past is not a good place to be. But recognizing how where you are is different than where you want to be is a good thing.

In my experience it all comes and goes in waves. Much like life. No sense stressing when the tide is going out, just trust that it will come in again.

I totally relate too... But one thing I've found helpful is to not give myself the option of waiting for creative inspiration (which frankly, for me, rarely comes) and to treat my passions like a job. I try to write something. Every day. Whether I want to or not.

check out http://www.dailyom.com/ You can subscribe and get a "daily om" emailed to you each day. They're freaky with their timing, things I'm feeling or thinking about (or stressing about) seem to be the next day's topic.

I can relate too... What I found familiar - besides being discontented with joe-jobs, that's what I always call them too! :) - was how I compare the present self/situation with past triumphs/failures - for me, it is not very helpful as it results in alot of "I should's", and takes me away from what is happening in the present.

There is a serious tendency in this profession to forget that we are humans first and performers second. It is impossible to give anything to your art or your job if you haven't anything left in you to give. ...It's hard to be a professional story teller if you don't take some time to generate a few stories of your own. Live your life. See other peoples' work from time to time to remind your self what you enjoy about theatre and what you'd like to change. But live your life. How else are you going learn what it is you have to say?

This one takes the cake:

I think you need one of these.

Great Expectations

What does Josh Bell on a street corner teach us?

Recently I got a chain email about taking the time to appreciate art. The email referred to a social experiment that the Washington Post conducted in 2007.

In a nutshell, the Post commissioned violinist Josh Bell to play classical classics on his $3.5 million Stradivarius in the middle of a subway station for change. The question was: would anybody notice?

You can read about how the experiment played out here.

The email got me thinking about theatre producers and our choices of venues when we want to make new work. It made wonder about taking audience types into account.

For example, whenever the Fringe comes into town, I invariably see a Chekov or a Moliere in the program. But is this the right venue for this kind of show? A typical Fringe audience is looking for a specific type of experience. But the same goes for a Soulpepper audience, or a Stratford audience, or a Tarragon audience. Each is particular, and each is looking for something different.

(The wonderful thing about the Fringe is that you can produce anything you want -- I get that. I'm only using it as an example because it's current.)

In Washington, no one stopped to appreciate Bell's music precisely because of the choice of venue. That doesn't make his playing any less brilliant, but I believe the experience of the art is an integral part of the art itself. The audience's expectations are a huge part of that equation.

It's the paradox of community or "amatuer" theatre. Some of the most wonderful theatre can be created in this setting because both the company AND the audience wills it to be brilliant.

Choose your venue; choose your tribe. Knowing your audience means knowing what its expectations are predisposed to be.

If you can connect with your audience, you can both mould those expections and you can exceed them.

Making Money on the Web

Indie artists, new-media journalism and DPI

Yes, the Internet is changing everything.

Following up on last week's post, my buddy Adrian emailed me to discuss some of the ideas in the post in more depth. He writes:

I think things are also in transition, and the piece speaks to that in a way - the 'answers' have not yet come out... the problems and opportunities in the democratization of the arts via the web. It's kind of exciting to be working at such a turning point; it's tough, but exciting to see the conversations happening, people inventing and creating ... like that indie singer/songwriter who managed to make 19k in 11 hours using Twitter, and basically just being creative. But she ended up making the money on merchandise - shirts mostly. Not selling her music. This seems to be the bottom line - the art is a promotional tool - you have to sell something which is not in endless supply (ie: an mp3). But, these can still be creative products which are an extension of your art.

Is this new arts business model? Selling items that are associated with your art while giving your art away for free? Then, magically, Trent Reznor weighed in on the same topic, in entirely different conversation elsewhere in the blogosphere:

The point is this: music IS free whether you want to believe that or not. Every piece of music you can think of is available free right now a click away. This is a fact - it sucks as the musician BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS (for now). So... have the public get what they want FROM YOU instead of a torrent site and garner good will in the process...

What's interesting to me is how everyone is trying to rethink traditional models of monetizing their practice in the age of the Internet... and I'm not just talking about the culture sector.

Case in point: journalism. Rebecca over at The Art of the Business points out an insightful article about the future of arts journalism today by András Szántó. He notes:

Amid the doom and gloom about arts journalism [...] innovations offer a glimmer of hope. There is no going back to the cultural and advertising dominance that newspapers once enjoyed. We should be mindful that the emerging landscape offers asymmetrical odds for art criticism (which can survive by the labour of individual writers) and arts reporting (which requires institutional firepower and protections). Writers will struggle to reclaim the access and influence they achieved with the backing of prestigious journalism brands. Even so, the faint outlines of a new system are starting to emerge.

This is a great article about the future of one sector of journalism. Everyone knows that this industry is under tremendous pressure, and a "new model" needs to be created. Although, nobody is quite sure what that model needs to be. There are various theories -- Jeff Jarvis recently wrote a book about basing all new economic models on Google's business model. In short: focus on networks rather than traditional distribution models and shift to an economy of abundance rather than one of scarcity.

An economy of abundance assumes that you can charge the least amount for a product or service by making it available to a nearly unlimited source of buyers (or users) via the World Wide Web. Very interesting theory. But... what if the access to the Web itself becomes limited?

This brings me to Deep Packet Inspection or DPI, an Internet issue garnering so much attention that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has dedicated an entire website to it.

What is it? Essentially it's technology that allows Internet Service Providers' (ISPs), or anyone else I suppose, to examine web transmissions to figure out what kind of content is being sent. Today the Big 3 Canadian ISPs (Bell, Rogers & Telus) are defending their positions to the CRTC to use DPI technology. From what I understand, they want to disuade peer-to-peer file sharing. Their arguement is that it allows a small share of users to eat up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.

Now, privacy issues aside, why would this affect artists', or anybody else's, attempts to monetize their practice on the Web? Well, DPI technology basically allows ISPs to "throttle" users at their own discretion. In other words, if your ISP believes you are using too much Internet, they can and will slow down your connection. And, apparently they can do this even if you bought a package marketed as "unlimited" or if you are using a small indie ISP, like TekSavvy or Execulink. If you want to know more about why and other politics surrounding this issue, check out this cool, informative post on Technology, Thoughts and Trinkets.

And, if you were planning on producing a play that, say, required you to upload a large amount of data to the Web in order for a variety of users to stream the production live... well, you'd be concerned about ISPs limiting users' access to the Internet too.

On the other hand, there are ways around everything, it seems. For you hackers out there, this is a link you might find interesting...

Is there any comparison? Part II

Mr. Ellis weighs in

A little background: Adrian Ellis and I go way back to High School, but have only reconnected in the past couple of years when I moved out to T.O. He's a wicked cool artist that composes for film but also composes and does sound design for theatre, most recently Staged & Confused's successful production of The Crackwalker.

Those of you that are interested in the nitty-gritty of the film composer's creative process should definitely check out his blog The Music Creative. I think its fascinating, and I totally dug his latest post on Music for Theatre. Oh, and you can also follow him on Twitter, you know, if you're into that sort of thing.

Aside from the fact that I think he's a righteous dude (and that we're planning to do some collaboration on the next incarnation of Superhero Live! as soon as I get this REALITY itch out of my system), I bring all this up because he wrote me an email the other day about my recent post that I wanted to share with y'all.

Check it out:

Hey Aaron,

You should open up your blog for non-Blogger users to comment!! ;)

(Aaron says: this is now fixed, by the by. Anybody who wants to post comments is now free to do so. Thx for the heads up, dude.)

I actually think this is a fascinating topic. Here are my thoughts:

Slimy producers vs. greedy wanna-be's

'If you build it, they will come'.

The producers see a need, and a cheap way to create programming that the public consumes like fresh baked double chocolate frosted cupcakes. As with most things that people lament about our consumerist, hyper-capitalist world, it is the public's acceptance, nay, requirement and hunger for entertainment in the form of sadism. They love to see people persevere and overcome, but even more, they love to see someone fail. This is what I find truly disturbing, not one opportunistic producer or fame-hungry stars in waiting, but the fact that people desire this highly negative, judgmental form of entertainment.

Why do they do it

Very very very very few artists have even the faintest clue about the music or film industry. There is an incredible deficit of proper and realistic education about the ins and outs, pitfalls of 'The Biz', and resources and strategies for success. Instead, people are transfixed by the myths and false promises of the industry - the big bucks and fame, that somehow, magically and by their (supposed) talent, they will be found, recognized, and in every way shepherded (bum patted) to success. Beyond this, even if an artist is somewhat educated about these things, they are not in any way prepared for what to do when 'it' does happen (you've won the lottery, now what?). A career is an incredibly difficult thing to manage, and even if you 'make it' a lot can happen. To make it you have to have a plan, and a sustained career has to have a plan.

So to answer your questions:

I'm trying to figure out what drives people to Reality-TV, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it. Is it the money? Is it the lure of fame? Is it something else?

What drive artists into our profession, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it? Is just passion? Is it the lure of fame? Or is it something else...


I think it's ignorance of the realities of the industry, and moreover, of the nature of reality tv. Recently, filmmaker friends of mine wanted to join the 'On The Lot' program, where filmmakers 'compete' against one another in order to have a film produced by Spielberg (or something, can't remember). I said, forget it guys. They really thought it was a shot at fame.
1. It's a lottery,
2. The best do not always win
3. The producers aren't interested in making stars, they are interested in making dramatic television that retains a high viewership. They will put you in positions that will make you look terrible (by design or post-production), and at worst will cost you your integrity and any real credibility you might have. Do you think the 'winner' of this show will have real clout in Hollywood? Never. It's a joke. They really had no clue what it was really about.

People have stars in their eyes. Everyone believes they have a special talent that is unique and will be recognized. The truth is, no one cares. You have to fight tooth and nail (just like any other entreprenuer!!!) to make your art heard/seen/cared about. Go online and check out some unknown indie-bands on myspace or whatever. There are tens of THOUSANDS - and many are good, if not great! Why are they not famous? Well, they can't ALL be famous, even though they 'deserve' it.

As far as the non-reality star chasing artists are concerned? Man, it takes all types. Let's assume they know the odds of the industry. Well, you gotta still somehow believe that you are going to have a go at it and make it because of god knows what reason. Faith, I guess? Yea, some are in it for the money, some the fame... more are starting to get it that those days are probably over, but there are real ways (hello, Internet distribution/marketing) to make a living - but it's hard and will take tons of work. Me? I do it because I absolutely LOVE what I do, and I want to spend as much time as possible being creative with the BEST creative people - and that means, doing it professionally. I no longer chase fame/fortune - I know the chances are miniscule, and mostly dependent on luck. But, I do know if I bust my ass and do the best work I can, I have an ok chance of at least making a decent living doing what I love.

CHEERS!

Adrian

Is there any comparison?

Is it wrong to feel kinship with Reality stars?

While surfing, I stumbled upon this article on Yahoo! about the darker side of Reality TV.

The second line is what caught my attention:

But who is to blame when an everyday person becomes an overnight TV sensation and can't cope -- when Susan Boyle falls ill after failing to win "Britain's Got Talent" or when "American Idol" fan Paula Goodspeed, who was teased after a poor tryout, commits suicide outside the home of a judge?

It's a good question. Since most of the Reality-TV analysis I've come across in recent weeks has been framed negatively, I'll pose it this way...

Do you blame the heartless and slimy networks/producers that create the shows or do you blame those attention-starved celebrity wannabes that audition for them?

Alot of people will answer, who cares?

But when I thought about it, I couldn't help but compare these folks to regular artists - like you and me. Not in terms of talent, but rather in terms of the disdain a good portion of our society has for us (while, at the same time, they keep sampling our wares).

I mean, when you publish a report that highlights a 37% wage gap between artists and the average Canadian worker, and that nearly half of us make less that $10K per year, the ensuing public response can range from apathy to outright hostility.

I'm trying to figure out what drives people to Reality-TV, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it. Is it the money? Is it the lure of fame? Is it something else?

What drive artists into our profession, despite the overwhelming odds and risks associated with it? Is just passion? Is it the lure of fame? Or is it something else...

And are the two urges related?

Back from the dead?

Hey kids;

Been a while since my last post.

Why?

I've been writing. Lots.
... and I'm kinda superstitious, and somehow got it into my head that blogging would somehow stem my creative flow.

But a couple of things that I wanted to let you know about:

1) I'm participating in a workshop this afternoon at CanStage, part of their Festival of Ideas and Creation. It's a Master Class called Projection Design, Language and Collaboration with Ben Chaisson and Beth Kates. Pretty friggin cool. Should be very useful.

2) Check out this show about Reality TV that's premiering at the Toronto Fringe this year. I'm going to check it out... I sure hope it's good.

Later!

Gig for Christie Digital Inc.

Wanna come check it out?

So this weekend I'm doing a few days of rehearsals and a video shoot for that gig I told you about a while back.

I could tell you more details about the new technology that Christie is developing... but then I'd have to kill you.

Well, actually, I don't know much about it yet (I find out more tomorrow). Basically it's a new video display technology, and the piece involves combining canned video and live performance. I will have to sign a "non-disclosure" agreement tomorrow morning to protect Christie's product until they start showing it off in July. But I can tell you a bit more about who's involved in the project:

The show will be directed by George Brown, Head of the Theatre Arts Department at Bradley University, Peoria, IL., and the video assets used in the show will be shot by James Ferolo, Head of the Multimedia Department at Bradley University. We have two producers from the University of Waterloo: Professor Jill Tomasson-Goodwin is the Principal Investigator (research team leader)and Gerd Hauck, who I believe is the liason between the University and Christie. It stars me and Stephanie Breton (who I will meet tomorrow).

Assuming all goes well over the next four days, there will be 1 day of 4-6 fifteen-minute performances on July 6 at the Lower Ossington Theatre. The initial set of performances on July 6 will be presented to groups of invited theatre entrepreneurs, technicians, and investors. (Christie has expressed an interest in hiring the actors on an ongoing basis for 6-8 trade shows across North America starting September 2009, for dates yet to be determined.)

When I first mentioned this gig, MK left a comment about how to get in on checking out the performance. I asked Gerd about it, and he said: "I suggest you just invite your theatre artist friends to show up at the Lower Ossington on July 6th. I’ll make sure they get in."

So, if you're interested, send me an e-mail and I'll let Gerd know.

Cheers

PS. The photo above is from one of Christie's more recent projects: Unsilent Night.

Thank you Praxis Theatre!

Several days ago, I saw this post over at Praxis' blog.

As a result, this afternoon I'll be playing with some really cool Brits and some likeminded TO artists.

I've said before, and I'll say it again: Gawd, I love the webbernet.

Thanks again guys.

What to look at?

An example of video projection in a theatrical setting

Well, in a dance setting, to be more specific.

Over the weekend, my wife and I went to check out Danceworks at Harbourfront, to see a double bill: Accidents for Every Occasion and Mischance and Fair Fortune, choreographed by Jenn Goodwin and Susie Burpee (respectively).

It was a lovely evening, and we both really enjoyed two very strong pieces of indie dance.

What was particularly interesting to me was the contrast between the two works: Accidents was a multimedia piece that incorporated projections of pre-recorded video content, while Mischance incorporated more "back-to-basics" theatrical elements (like scrims and fake blood).

Accidents used different techniques to unify the film elements with the rest of the piece: abstract images, slow motion, projections of text that timed perfectly with moments of dialogue, etc. I felt that Goodwin was successful in marrying the different elements in the production. That being said, the video in Accidents still generated the same kind of anxiety that I've felt in every other multimedia theatre piece I've seen: that I'm going to miss something cool.

It's the anxiety of "where to look" that only video-in-theatre can produce. I believe that this is due to a combination of two elements: 1) the projections are usually placed above the performers so that they don't block the pictures, and 2) video/film projections capture your attention more easily than live performance.

This second element can be problematic in a forum where the live performances should be the audience's primary focus. Well... maybe "problematic" isn't quite the right word, but it definately has an alienation effect on the audience. It's hard to get lost in the action when you're constantly wondering where you should look.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a choice. And that choice was really highlighted for me when watching two different shows that explore similar themes, but use vastly different staging techniques.

And, of course, it brought be back to my project in which I've been planning to incorporate live-feed video projections... but now I'm wondering whether it's necessary.

See, I know I want to broadcast the performance on the internet (via streaming), and I want to have cameras incorporated into each and every scene - as part of the whole spectacle of "lives lived on Reality TV." But... I wonder: if that is the primary spectacle, then does having the added element of video projections add or detract from the experience?

Just because I can let the audience see the cameras' POVs, would they want to? What is the stronger choice?

I realize I'm jumping ahead of myself on this (thinking as a director/producer instead of a writer), but this does have an effect on the writing. If I want to leave myself the choice of whether or not to keep the projections, then I have to make sure that they are not integrated into the story. That the piece could be performed without projections and keep its integrity...

If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to read them.

Day 5

Less creative, more administrative

And... good evening,

I would have blogged earlier, but I got caught up in the big press conference.

Today was about setting a schedule. Planning for the next stage of this bad boy. Grant deadlines and resources. And a chat with my web-dude. We had a chat about whether my idea was feasible (it is!), whether it would cost an arm and a leg (it won't... at least on the web side - the video side is another story), and whether it's really "interactive" (jury's still out on that one).

So on the last day before I go back to my joe-job, I feel good. Prez. Obama had it exactly right: "I'm happy with the progress so far, but I am not content."

More needs to be done. And it's up to me to keep working, evenings and weekends, until my next week off. End of May.

I'll keep you updated, but more on big ticket items rather than day-to-day stuff, as i go.

Good night!

Day 3

Two different stories for two different audiences

No, I didn't work on my REALITY project over the weekend. Why not? Well, 5 of the 6 boys from my BFA class were in town for a wedding. So we had a mini-reunion, some good food, and way too much to drink.

Plus, my wife and I had to finish our taxes. (We did - YAY!)

Plus, I went to go see the Subway Series, presented by Ghost Jail Theatre and The Sketchersons. And it was fucking awesome.

I realized this weekend, however, that I'm not going to be finished the next draft of my script by the time the first week of my creation process is done. There's just too much that needs to be done. However, I believe that the work that I'm doing now is accomplishing three very important things:

1) I'm creating a detailed enough scaffold to be able to finish a really strong draft in the next couple of weeks.
2) I'm writing with production in mind, so that I can bring my collaborators some really solid material to work with.
3) I'm building momentum which will push me to continue the work when I go back to my 9-5 gig.

The third thing is the most important because, to tell you the honest truth, I've been creatively dry for months now. As tough as the process is, I'm relieved.

Er, yes, "scaffold". It's a term my former AD used to use, for our ETC creative process. Here is a quote:

"Sometimes the work begins from nothing more than an idea, sometimes a rough script (or as we call it, a scaffold) is brought into rehearsals, or existing material is sometimes adapted. From there, exploration, de-construction and general mayhem ensues."
Barbra French – ETC Artistic Director

I guess, in my personal process, it's more of an outline. This is what I'm using for each scene:

Location: I describe the setting here
Date: The year the scene takes place
Media: My ideas for camera feed, projection and online streaming
Description: Plot description
Background: What happens before and after

At this point, I've cut about 1/3 of my existing material, have re-ordered my scenes and am using the above format to help me figure out how much I want to keep and how much needs to be re-written in the next draft.

I'm also considering having two versions of the play for an online audience and an in-person audience. The idea is currently this: the online audience sees what the camera sees via a live-feed stream. The in-person audience can also see the camera feed via projections. However, there are three scenes that take place off-camera. I was thinking before of just videoing the action offstage and nixing the projections. Now I'm wondering if I should shoot some pre-recorded content, and stream alternate scenes for the online audience while the in-person audience watches entirely different material.

Ignoring the technical headaches that this entails, the play is all about perception vs. identity, so I like the idea of having different versions of the story that exist. Especially if the "real" version is more difficult to access - you have go in-person to see the show to access it. Although "real" is not the right word: both versions are "real". Just one reality would be more packaged than the other. (Which imitates the subject matter quite nicely.)

But maybe people would be turned off if they felt like they were missing out on something. I don't know, what do you think?

Freedom!

... to get some work done!

I'm off work: from my job-job at least.

So, where to start?

Am starting by reviewing my previously written material. Then character development. I found this set of questions online months and months ago (sorry, can't remember where, so no link). This seems as good as place as any to begin.

(yeah, yeah, character analysis 101, but what the hell.)

---

Essential Questions about a Character:
(Always answer each question in the first person)

1. Describe yourself in three sentences.
2. How did you get your name? Do you like your name?
3. How old are you? Do you like your age?
4. Who is your best friend? Who are your enemies? What makes an enemy and what makes a friend for you?
5. Do people generally like you? How much money do you have? Are you happy with that?
6. Describe something significant that happened to you yesterday.
7. Describe something significant that happened to you in your past.
8. What do you want? What do you need? What is stopping you from getting what you want?
9. What do you like about yourself? What do you dislike?
10. Any religion?
11. If you could be someone else, who would you be?
12. Who is your hero? Who is your role model?
13. What is your favorite fairy tale?
14. What do you hope for in the future?
15. What is your greatest fear?
16. What is your greatest dream?
17. What makes you angry?
18. What do you worry about?
19. What is your ideal death?
20. What’s your worst death?
21. I am obsessed with…
22. I can still hear my mother saying…
23. I can still hear my father saying…
24. I am like …
25. My motto in life is …
26. I never have …
27. I always …
28. Describe your living environment…
29. What’s the first thing you do in the morning?
30. What do you see in the mirror? Do you like what you see?
31. How do you get ready to go out?
32. Are you loved?
33. Who do you love?
34. Are you happy with your life? Do you have the ability to change it?
35. What animal are you most like?

---

Update: 4pm.

Okay, so I didn't use the above list at all.

Those questions are more general fine-tuning questions. My script problems are a little more broad than that. I might come back to these sometime later, but today I needed a more focused strategy.

I've started placing my script in real time, as in a start date and an end date for the story. Earlier drafts play with time, i.e. scenes are not ordered chronologically from first to last. Which I like and am planning to keep. However I need to have a really firm idea of what is actually happening in order to make sure everything makes sense.

Furthermore, my general wishy-washy attitude about time has resulted in wishy-washy characters. By firming up exactly what happens when will help me clarify each character's objectives for each scene. You can only know what you want if you understand where you're coming from...

I'm also discovering weaknesses in the plot. "Discover" is not really the right word, as I already knew that there were weaknesses in there... this is more like pinpointing them, I guess. It's a kind of unraveling effect -- just pulling on a string and the whole outfit is coming apart.

Now, this post may sound negative, but I'm actually relieved as I write this. Don't worry, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I feel like I'm making progress, and although I have a lot of work ahead of me, I feel like I can solve the problems that are unfolding in front of me. It's been a good day so far.

And I'm having fun, to boot.

Update City #2

Vacations, reunions, and gigs, oh my!

Just got back from a little trip back home to Alberta, mostly to see family. First to Calgary to see my in-laws, then to Edmonton to see my immediate family. I'd be lying to you if I told you I wasn't intensely homesick when we arrived in Edmonton... but then it snowed 15cm on the day we flew out, so I felt better.

This was a family trip, so I totally apologize to all my friends back home who are reading this, saying 'what the hell, why didn't you say you were back in town???' We were only in each city for 3 days, and had 2 Passover seders and an Easter dinner to attend. The rest of the time we spent digesting...

However, by pure serendipity, the core members of my (now-disbanded) Edmonton theatre troupe, the Etcetera Theatre Collective were all in town at the same time: me, Artistic Director Barbra French, and Company Dramaturge Heather Fitzsimmons Frey. We met for coffee at Heather's (the only one still in E-town), partly to catch up but also so I could return archival videos of our shows back to Barbra. She's getting a website done up, and is hoping to digitize and upload all our shows online. Once it's live, I'll be sure to post a link.

It was sure nice to see them again -- really, it's the first time we've been in the same space in two years -- and shoot the shit about life and, well, theatre. Both Barbra and Heather have been mentors to me, and it was really nice to chat with them about our craft. Especially now that I'm about to go into an intense writing period.

Speaking of which, I've booked two weeks off of my joe-job to focus on my REALITY play. Starting on Thursday of next week, I'm taking a week off, and then taking another week off at the end of May. The first week I'm going to be focusing on story and character development -- mostly on character development actually. (I'm very excited to leave the drudgery of "real life" for a bit and let my imagination play for a bit... er, right after we do our taxes this weekend.) Then, with a couple of weeks in between writing periods, I can get some distance on the script, re-focus and involve my collaborators in designing the play for both physical and virtual space.

Speaking of virtual space, does anyone remember this notice that the CAEA e-newsletter sent out a few weeks back?

Audition call for one female and one male performer for a 15-20 minute co-production between the Drama Department of the University of Waterloo and Christie Digital Inc., a Waterloo-based company involved in the research and manufacture of innovative data projection systems. Most recently Christie Digital demonstrated their projection capabilities during the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympics and for Robert Lepage's Le Moulin à Images on the occasion of Quebec City's 400th anniversary. The production will be presented (a) at a showcase for theatre entrepreneurs to be held in Toronto in early July (exact date TBA) and (b) 6-8 trades shows during the subsequent year. Performers will be asked to sign a retainer for the subsequent trade shows.

I've been offered this gig, so it looks like I'll be doing a little more hands-on research in the coming weeks on incorporating multimedia into performance. I'm hoping to share the experience with all of you while I'm at it, but I'm not exactly sure how much I'll be allowed to talk about because of this:

Since the co-production involves a new video display technology, performers must be willing to sign a binding Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

What does this mean? I'm not exactly sure since I'm still waiting to see a contract. Who knows, this all might just end up being pie-in-the-sky in the long run... (keep your fingers crossed for me that it's not, k?)

Assuming that it all works out, and even though it's not a full-on actual production, I'm still looking forward to dusting off my performance skills and getting in front of an audience. And since it's technically a tour, I'll be sure to let you know where I'm going to end up. If I'm in a city near you, let's grab a beer or two, eh?

In the land of the blind...

...the one-eyed man is King

My wife said this to me a couple of weeks ago as we walked by a little food shop advertising the “Best Seafood Schwarma in Toronto.”

(Blek!)

Good laugh, but it also got me thinking about my REALITY project, and my penchant for ‘innovation’ in theatre, in general.

In other words, I got a little scared.

My little bone-chilling thought went like this: what’s the point of experimenting with new technologies in theatre if nobody cares?

I’ve written in past blog posts about the dangers of marketing experimental theatre. And yet, I keep coming back to it. The basic experimental premise of REALITY is how to use multimedia to present the work in two spaces: a physical space and a virtual space. This essentially means that the production requires two designs, and the challenge is ensure that the designs compliment each other, rather than distract from one another.

However, a larger concern should be: “Is there even an audience for that kind of work?”

I’m convinced that digital technology and the web is going to become more and more integrated into theatrical work. Many of the theatre blogs that I follow focus on incorporating social media into marketing plans for productions. A smaller number of them focus on using digital technology to enhance design elements, like lights and sound.

I’ve read very little about integrating the web into actual production… but I think that’s going to change.

Consider the success the New York Metropolitan Opera has had in screening its productions in HD in movie theatres. Canada’s Stratford Festival has also tried doing this with last year’s Caesar and Cleopatra.

Stratford has actually jumped on the internet train by broadcasting web interviews with creators and stars of its productions. (I also heard a rumor that they’re planning to broadcast a couple of rehearsals too, but I can’t confirm if that’s true or not…) Both of these initiatives are remarkably brave considering how terribly theatre can translate onto video or film… (And, moving forward with my project, this is a challenge that is particularly daunting.)

You can call this marketing, or you can call it “alternative revenue streams,” but I’d like to think that it’s also a design trend.

The internet is changing how people work, relax and relate to one another. There’s a lot of fear out there that this is negatively affecting theatre: that the web encourages people to stay at home rather than assemble to witness a live event.

(Well… so does TV.)

The thing is, I don’t think that combining the two platforms is going to give me any kind of competitive edge. A theatre audience will come out to a show – if it’s exciting, fresh, marketed-well, and ultimately good – regardless.

If I’m going to have a second, digital-based platform to share my work, it should be designed specifically for the intended audience: web-heads.

It should be designed for an audience who may not be interested in going out to watch a show, but rather enjoys surfing, watching new You-Tube vids, Facebooking, blogging, downloading, connecting with friends on social media sites, etc.

I don’t necessarily want to broaden the appeal to an existing audience (although, that would be nice, if it happens). I want to expand my work so that it appeals to entirely different audiences.

Consider this: I currently live in Toronto. The bulk of my career was spent in Edmonton. I also lived in Germany for two years, and have friends and family there too. Not to mention, this blog has had comments from people who live all the way on the west coast.

If I get REALITY produced, I could conceivably share my work with all these people who would have no chance of getting to T.O. to check it out. They could share the live experience, and the communal experience, in a virtual way. Online. On a platform designed specifically for them.

That excites me. And so we move forward… shivering with fear, or not.

Update City

Or, “Where the hell have you been, Talbot?!?”

In a word, busy.

No, unfortunately, not in a good "creating/writing/birthing-process" kind of way, but rather in a "my joe-job is consuming my life" kind of way. I had to cover for a gaggle of different people who were either sick or on vacation during the past month, and I’ve been totally exhausted to do much creatively, nevermind blogging about it.

It’s funny how life works out. Like many artists, I’ve been subjected to the: "When are you going to get a real job?" stigma… I’ve been asked that directly and, of course, indirectly through our politicians and our media. Without disclosing my employer, do you want to know what my main responsibility for my "real" job is???

First, I print the emails off of the computer.

Then, I scan the emails back into the computer.

This is my "real" job. Society’s messed up, kids.

However, I will give my employer due credit: my job's allowing me to take two weeks off to work on my show (…unpaid, of course, but that’s where my grant comes in). I plan to split up my leave into two one-week segments in April and May. This will allow me to get some distance from the piece in between drafts.

As mindless as my job is, I’m very grateful to how supportive they are. And, I guess it beats waiting tables. Or working at Timmy’s. (I’ve done both.)

I haven’t just been sitting on my thumbs, however. While I haven’t been working on the script proper, I’ve been revising my approach to the work. Specifically, I’ve been revising my process as I had outlined in my OAC grant proposal, based partly on the amount of money I actually received.

Anyone who has received an artist’s grant before knows about the difference between the amount of money you’ve asked for versus the amount of money you actually receive. For project grants, having a shortfall in funding from one granting source may not be such a big deal, if you have multiple sources of revenue.

In the past, I've just generally made-do with the money I got. But I don't think I ever delivered value-for-money when I've done that. More importantly I don't think I got true value for my time invested... not that each experience wasn't valuable, but rather, I question whether I could have made each project pay dividends if I had taken the time to plan according to my budget realities. In other words, if I had looked for opportunities to enhance the project for the future, or for other parties to collaborate with, or for different venue options to present it... well, who knows what might be.

So that's what I'm doing with this one. I'm working with an eye to the future. I'm designing my process so that I'm not just looking at what this grant offers me and my collaborators right now, but a few months and a few years down the road...

Maybe everybody already does that. If so, I'm crashing the party!

Answering my own question

Before I move on from politics...

This will be my last political-based post for a little while as I'm going to start to focus more on artistic process and theory now that I finally got my first grant since moving to Ontario in mid-2007. (Yay!)

But before I do, I thought I'd answer my own question about arts funding in Budget '09.

Did we get what we wanted?

Well, no... but I don't really think it has much to do with how much money was earmarked for culture, nor do I think it has much to do with how the money was distributed (although this is a side effect of what's really ailing us).

What I think we really wanted was a government that recognizes the value of arts and culture in Canada. We still don't have it and, as long as the Harper Conservatives retain power, I don't think we will.

With the 2009 Budget, the sudden appointment of 18 senators immediately preceding it, and the establishment of a firm end-date for the Afghanistan mission during last year's election, the Conservative government basically stopped being... conservative. Or, at least it abandoned the lion's share of policies that it used to stand for.

(Don't take my word for it though. Here's a pundit that knows more about it than I do. Here's another. And another.)

But I don't think this represents a seismic shift in where the party's long-term goals are. Rather, I think that it's a natural consequence of a government whose immediate focus is survival at all costs: compromise.

But that doesn't mean Mr. Harper, his party, or his base now values culture any more than it did when they used arts funding as a wedge issue in the 2008 Federal election. In fact, I've written earlier that the new arts funding in Budget '09 is less a policy than a temper tantrum.

What bugs me, and I think most artists, is that Mr. Harper painted us as leeches in order to win a few votes, and the budget does nothing to salvage our reputation. And we can see that he still thinks we're leeches because no new money is going to arm's length organizations (i.e. Canada Council) that fund us.

What we wanted, what we still want, is a little respect. We want recognition that we do provide an important service to our country, that we are a boon both in raw financial numbers as well as in quality of life.

We want a partnership with our government that is both respectful and responsible. (We don't want to waste taxpayer's dollars anymore than the taxpayers want us to.)

We recognize that not all of our art is going to be brilliant... in fact very little of it will be. In fact, a large portion of it will be shit. That's a fact of life. Art is like science: you must fail, fail, and fail again before you finally discover another secret of the universe.

I think each new secret is worth it. I just wish more people agreed with me.

Art for Business…Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Michael Cowie

Big sale on now for artists who want to get on the web

I’m kinda excited for today’s blog post because I’m finally able to offer something useful to readers, rather than my own silly opinions.

I’d like to introduce you to Michael Cowie, a friend and colleague of mine who I’ve worked with extensively. Among other things, he’s a web designer (that’s how he eats) and, get this, he specializes in websites for theatre companies and artists.

Which companies? Well, there’s the internationally acclaimed (and soon to be featured at Toronto’s Luminato festival) Catalyst Theatre. There’s also Worshop West Theatre which, if you’re an aspiring Canadian playwright, you should become familiar with right quick. And for you West Coasters, there’s also young Jon Lachlan Stewart.

So why would you want to work with Mike? Well, he’s talented, design-savvy (most of the pics on my blog were taken and/or manipulated by him) and has a tonne of tricks up his sleeve. He can do regular HTML sites, and is also proficient with the new Joomla content management system, which is all the rage right now. Why? Because it allows you to update your website yourself without having to pay a designer to do it for you (like Facebook).

Most of all, he respects artists. Check out the opening paragraph from his Art for Business page:

“Every artist is a good businessperson. They have to be – they get their business done on a shoestring budget, and sometimes have to work miracles just to stay afloat. Any small business knows the game of juggling customer relations, business-to-business collaborations and marketing costs, customer development and financial gymnastics. Business and art go hand in hand – and nowhere more than on the web.”

Whether or not you agree, it’s a refreshing attitude to start a business relationship with, don’t you think? And if you’re not ready to bite, he has useful advice on his “I need a website” page. Check it out:

“You don't necessarily need something shiny or fancy to make an impact or to get a lot of functionality – and functionality is key, now that the web is a means of production and not just a means of communication. If you take time to plan a web-design project properly, you can have both - and get a work of genius on a low-fi budget - but you need to make sure it's a foundation you can build-on when your resources and budget increase, and that it's a tool that you can use to its maximum potential.”

Last but not least, he’s having a “recession busting” sale right now, and knocking off a large chunk of dough (up to 500 bucks!) off the price, if you throw down a deposit in advance. But don’t take my word for it. He’s got testimonials peppered around his site, or you can check out his portfolio and see for yourself. (Yes, there are a lot of pictures of me up there; I’m not totally selfless when marketing my friends…).

Those of you a little more technically inclined, take a look at his Hack Notes for useful tips on pimping out your Mac.

Contact him. He’s really cool.

(You’re welcome, Mike.)

An(other) interview w/ Matej Andraž Vogrinčič

PART TWO

This is the second half of my interview with Matej Andraž Vogrinčič, a cool, international visual artist originally from Slovenia. You can check out Part ONE here.

---

Aaron ~ So, Matej, the reason why we're chatting right now is because of a blog post I wrote last year about Run For Love, a cool multimedia/theatrical piece at the 2008 Aurillac International Street Theatre Festival. I was inspired by seeing that production and would love to get some insight on the process.

MAV ~ Okay.

Aaron ~ How did you get involved with Run For Love?

MAV ~ Ja, I first worked with Matjaz Pograjc 17 years ago. We have the same producers in Ljubljana.they've continued to work with Matjaz for all that time and then they also worked with me on my Liverpool biennial boats project in 2006. So they suggested, "how about you two working together again?" So, we had couple of brainstorms.

Aaron ~ How about Ez3kiel? I mean, the music was such a huge part of the project... Was there any prior working relationships there?

MAV ~ I had never heard of Ez3kiel before. But the project was done as a collaboration with a cultural program called Tandem. It's a French project that invites artists from France and another European country to collaborate. So we started to listen to some French bands and this one seemed to fit.

Aaron ~ International cultural collaboration... believe me, we're all very envious back here in Canada! So, did you all collaborate together? Was it one person's vision or did everyone come up with the idea together?

MAV ~ It was more one person's vision of how to put separate works together into a single theatre piece. How to bring a contemporary art piece, a concert and a story all together into a theatre piece. Or an "urban spectacle" as some critics used to call it.

Aaron ~ And, how do you personally communicate your ideas to others?

MAV ~ In most of the cases I just talk about them. Sometimes I do some drawings, but drawings are normally totally different from the end project, so I do not use them as much.

Aaron ~ Does the way you communicate change depending on the country you're working in? I don't mean just language barriers: I mean different cultural histories and attitudes towards art.

MAV ~ The way I communicate has not changed so far. My approach, especially using public space, is really basic. And, at this basic level cultural histories and attitudes in my opinion are not so very different.

Aaron ~ I guess you would know: you've travelled around the world to create site-specific art. BTW, is Ljubljana still home for you?

MAV ~ Hm, I have to think about it. Yes, I guess it is still my home. But I know it is not my only home. Home for me is where my love is. And also where the stove is burning and people are gathered around a freshly cooked meal. Well. I guess those two are connected somehow.

Aaron ~ After working on Run For Love, what would you say the main difference is between an public space installation piece and a public space performance piece (like street theatre)?

MAV ~ Well, in my case, the main difference was the site specific element. The majority of my projects are done just for a single space. Especially for that space and so the piece can not travel. Also, the majority of installations are there for longer. They do not have the same "performance magic" of just couple of hours and then everything is back to normal. But. if I start to think about it, the boundaries become more vague. Depends also on how we define street theatre and installation

Aaron ~ That's probably a can of worms we don't need to open right now. Moving on! Digital media is becoming more accessible (and affordable!) for many artists, and was a big part of Run For Love. Do you plan to use more digital media in your work?

MAV ~ Yes, I do. It is very important for me because it is a document. After a month, an installation is gone and the images are the only remaining document. I must say, for me, they are not just documents - they are pieces of art themselves. I prepare my installations knowing that the main product is not only this installation but also the photography. So far I have not had enough money to make movies about the whole process. but hopefully for my next project, a video or a movie about the installation with all the close ups and beautiful details will be another work of art here to stay longer than just a month.

Aaron ~ Speaking of which, do you have future collaborations coming up?

MAV ~ No, unfortunately not at the moment. I might work with Matjaz on some set designs for his new piece, but no future collaborations with somebody else at the moment.

Aaron ~ Hear that Canada? Opportunity is knocking.Okay, last question - and it's a goofy one, but totally fitting within the context of this blog. Do you read comic books? If so, do you have a favourite?

MAV ~ Uh. I am bad when it comes to comic books. But please tell me which one is your favourite one? I am in London at the moment so I hope they sell it here!

---

If anyone has a comic recommendation for Matej (or has any questions for him that I didn't ask), please let him know by commenting on this post. I know he's watching.

Thank you so much to Matej for taking the time to chat with me and providing the cool pics. I wish him all the best, and look forward to being able to see his next project! (Hopefully in person!)

Dark disappointment?

No "Best Picture" for Dark Knight
not necessarily a bad thing

Listen, I can't complain about DK being beaten out by lesser films for the Best Picture nod, because I didn't see the other contenders. Mind you, A LOT of people missed out on the other contenders. This seems to follow the Oscar's latest trend of lauding films that nobody goes to.

Personally, I think this is probably the way to go: Point out the diamonds in the rough -- give the little guys a chance! (But then, I come from an independent/experimental theatre background... I know all about being the little guy in the big bad arts world.)

However, some people are REALLY disappointed by DK missing out on BP honours. I'm not. Why? Cause I think it'll be better for comic-inspired movies in the long run.

DK is the second highest grossing movie of all time. The only other movie to beat it was Titanic, which won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1997. (Whether or not it was deserved is another story altogether.) Thus, movie producers can conclude three things:

1) High quality comic book movies will make a helluva lotta money
2) Dark Knight could have made more money than it did (or will)
3) Simply copying Dark Knight is not the way to make the most money

Movie producers tend to take a good idea/concept and carbon copy it until it dies a horrible, horrible death. Look no further than the Batman movies of the 90's.

Maybe, however, just maybe, movie producers might realize that a blockbuster comic book movie that is capable of getting an Oscar nod is the way to go. The Dark Knight was the closest that they've ever got. But it was missing something... and, maybe, some more thought needs to be put into it before blindly copying and mass producing the shit out of the formula.

... Or maybe I'm giving Hollywood too much credit.

Anyway, let's keep it in perspective. I think The Dark Knight was a great movie, and the main reason for it's critical success lies in Heath Ledger's exceptional performance as Joker. He has been given Oscar recognition for that role (though whether he'll actually win is still very much in the air).

His recognition stands alone, as I think it should. His performance lifted the movie up. It's only right that the movie's accolades should not overshadow the performer.