Recently I found myself in a meeting where once again we were discussing curriculum. It seems that we're having to bone up the presentation of the various parts of our program that enhance students "general education." That we're a conservatory and "that's just not what we do" is apparently not a complete defense these days.
So previous to this we've gone through everything we teach looking for those things that would qualify as "general education." We use the six semesters of Drama Lit, the required History, the required English, our clothing history, our architecture history, the new OSWALD class, much of Production Planning (as applied things like accounting do count as GenEd but applied things like flat building don't - who knew), Physics of Stage Machinery, Structures, and the seven electives. For most of our students this did manage to cover the requirement, but for a few who do more of a double degree that we say is like a double major while cramming it into a standard four year program see a little bit less.
Which left us thinking about production.
Someone offered up that you don't do theatre about theatre, you do theatre about things.
Now I have to tell you the very first thing I heard in my head was my Dad saying "oh, really? Theatre isn't about theatre? Then what were Chorus Line, 42nd Street, Applause, All About Eve, Noises Off, Phantom of the Opera, Annie Get Your Gun, Dreamgirls, Gypsy..." You get the point, yes? As he would conclude "well, another slice of life."
But maybe it isn't so much of a reach. Everyone involved with a production, especially a school production becomes immersed in the world of the play. Who is to say who has a more broadening experience; the student in a comparative religions course or the student designing Nathan the Wise. We've worked very hard to insure that the offered season in our program touches a fairly rigorously defined group of genres within any given three year window. Just because the genres we've chosen: Classical Antiquity, Post War, Modern Drama, and World Stages (I think, I'd have to look them up) relate more closely to theatre literature it doesn't mean that they don't also relate to the historical periods they come from, to the cultures that produced them, or even more transparently to the actual content of the play.
What is the curricular value measured against a "general education" metric of producing a play like Copenhagen? Doesn't this produce a survey that touches mid 20th century European history as well as Chemistry? I mean, I know you don't leave after seeing a production of this show knowing how to build an atomic bomb, but we're not talking about audience, we're looking at the illumination of the members of the company. Certainly these people are having to research Bohr and Heisenberg, their work, their homes - let alone their clothing and language. It isn't what we typically regard as a history survey course, but with the contextualizing of the information it could quite easily be labeled a history survey lab.
And really, what History department at any school in this age of cross-campus integration wouldn't kill to have a course called something like "The Life & Times of Bohr & Heisenberg" offered in their curriculum? If it would be GenEd for our kids to go to History to take that, clearly the process of doing the production must have some congruence to the classroom experience.
The four year production sequence of the School of Drama is a required eight semester inter-disciplinary laboratory course in world cultural and historical studies. The content of the course comes from all of the humanities, arts, sciences, business, and engineering - from everything people do in their lives. That content is set in the context of a particular historical and/or cultural period and the producing of the work requires Drama students to make a rigorous guided inquiry into all of what makes up "General Education."
From a certain standpoint, perhaps all liberal arts students should really be theatre students. It certainly beats watching a grad student run a powerpoint presentation. Why look at or read about something when you can have the immersive experience of living it? Maybe conservatory drama had it right all along.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
What is "Theatre" About?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow. You have it SO right. I have to tell you, walking around Jerusalem, as I am fortunate enough to do every other weekend or so these days, I CONSTANTLY think of the world of Nathan the Wise. It brings me back there, to those experiences. Sure I consider my management style and the things that actually happened on the show, but when I toured the holy sepulchre I was thinking about the actions occuring there and relating back. When I walk through olive feilds I imgine Nathan in his inquistive moments, and there have been so many times, walking through stone alleyways that I think "Hmm, Hallie should be here. She would see that her set really caputered Jerusalem in all it's glory." Now, freshman year I took the required "World history" course. I think it was an overview of ancient history to maybe early 19th century. Sure it was a long time ago, but even a month later, I wouldn't be able to tell you a damned thing I learned in there. I learned it to pass the test. But from each and every show I did, I learned something, even if I didn't mean to, becasue it just comes with the territory. And now, it's serving me well. oh-and I also can't stop hearing Dick Block talking about architecture at every turn. Do I feel that I missed anything by being in a conservatory rather than a genED curriculum?
Yea, right. Ask those GenED kids in 7 years if they remember anything they LEARNED in college.
I totally agree with the production assignments being mini rigorous guided inquiries. It is amazing how much you can learn about a particular topic when working on a show because of the level of focus involved. When you are researching a design, you know what information you need to learn and you go learn it. You can focus your energy on the topics that are pertinent and skip the things that aren't necessary to the success of the production (for example: I'm sure they didn't waste any time researching what the Native Americans were doing at the time of Nathan the Wise).
Also the environment surrounding a production is so conducive to the absorption of information and material. If you are out actually designing a set in a particular style, you are going to learn so much compared to if you were sitting in a classroom learning about that style of architecture or the construction methods of the time.
Another great part of the production assignments is you get to learn about a culture and way of life from the viewpoint of a specific area which you a genuinely and indisputably interested in. By studying the way their religion affected their clothing styles, a costume designer is going to learn about important parts of the culture. Even for players who are not an essential part of the design team, crew can still be a very valuable learning experience. A young aspiring lighting designer who is on the focus crew can observe how the designer constructed different looks based on the research. A young set designer working in the paint shop or props department can learn about the choices of set finishes and details of a particular architectural style. A young costume designer working in the costume shop can look at the renderings and research books to see how the clothing was based on the styles of the time period.
And I’m sure people with production assignments not in their area of focus learn things too.
I think are some other elements at work, here. First, look at the kind of people who seek out conservatory educations, be it theatre, music or what have you. These are smart, capable, engaged, interested, driven people. When I was at Tisch, other NYU students used to make all kinds of fun. They'd always say that school initials, TSOA (for Tisch School of the Arts) stood for "Too Stupid for Other Academics." Until the school released a bunch of data on the student body and it turned out Tisch students had the highest SAT and ACT scores in the university. Too Stupid for Other Acdemics, my ass.
Second, a conservatory education teaches one HOW to learn. It comes in a roundabout way, but in production situations, you have to solve problems. And you might not be able to find the answer in a book or online, but you can apply principles and skills that you were taught and arrive a resolution.
I think, too, that if you look at what conservatory grads go on to do--even if it isn't in theatre or music or writing or film or visual art--it's obvious that we've all got more than our fair share of drive and smarts, and since we learned how to learn, we do better for ourselves than most.
I am, of course, biased being a conservatory grad myself. I don't worry about kids who go to conservatory, because even if they don't end up in the arts, they're well equipped to make their way and make a difference. It's the schlubs whose entire academic lives are based on that binge-and-purge cycle of holding facts only until the next multiple choice test that worry me.
Post a Comment