Some More Thoughts on Process Blogging Etc.

I want to build a bit off of the good conversation happening over at Mac's place but I'm a little cautious about doing so. A few months ago, I swore off blogging-about-blogging (or "meta-blogging") because although doing so had helped build Parabasis' readership and my reputation as a writer, I felt like in the past year or so I've noticed that metablogging tends towards a layer of solipsism and viciousness that I'm not comfortable with. Another way of putting it is: almost everything I've ever regretted saying on this blog has been because of inter-blog disagreements over something. And I think many bloggers would agree with me about their own writing.

Also I worry that blogging-about-blogging is boring. But actually, people seem very interested in it. So let me add a few of my cents to the conversation here. Part of this is also because Devilvet asks some really really good questions in the comments of Mac's post that I think are worth addressing... so here goes an attempt to answer some of Devilvet's ?'s:

a) How does self promotion evolve beyond narcissism?

I'm reminded here of something David Foster Wallace said about the difference between advertising and art... Advertising wants something from you while art wants to give something to you. I think the way for self-promotion to move beyond narcissism is for it to offer something to or be intimately concerned with the other... in other words, one must paradoxically self-promote while making it less about yourself and more about what you have to offer to someone else. I have a friend who used to be a playwright, who is older, and a successful businessman. He has upbraided my repeatedly for the way i tend to self-promote like someone is doing me a favor by seeing my work. As he put it: "It's not about you. The way you talk about your shows it's like people are doing you a favor by going to see it. It's like when you invite people to a party by telling them you're really worried no one will show up! Who wants to see that?!"/ I learned a lot from that conversation. Treating people like they're doing me a favor by coming is narcissistic because it makes it all about me and what i get out of the experience (more audience members etc.) as opposed to how great the show is and what it can offer the viewer.

I would also say with the atheist viagra blog we're very self-consciously trying to engage the outside issues of the play as much as possible and make it about being outward-looking.

b) Should Narcissism even be a concern? Theatre is after all truth twisted in with exhibitionism, so why concern oneself, especially while talking about their work or process on their own blog with the question am I being too narcisstic?

I'm not sure if it should be a concern. I try to avoid narcissism in my work both as a writer and as a director, I try to use myself as material to look outwards and engage outwards. Obviously, there's some inward-motion that needs to happen to make that possible. For some people, blogging and art are more about self examination and expression. For those people, narcissism should only be a concern to the extent that one would worry about boring their audience (the cardinal sin of art!).

c) For those out there that are concerned with how the notion of a digital camera or mic at rehearsal or at the coffeehouse afterwards will limit their approach or jepordize their security...could you talk about some of those edges of acceptability to you? Is it completely hands off...or would stills/photos be acceptable without captions...or discussions of approach without naming actors, or maybe closer investigation but after the show closes? Are there options, are there shades of grey?

This is tricky. Like I said, I blog about myself in the rehearsal room,but not others in general unless i have their express permission or a long time has passed, long enough for it to be completely anonymous. I mean, the really juicy stuff is never going to make it onto a blog if you're being responsible-- I'm not going to write blog posts about the two times I wished I had fired actors, because doing so would involve getting into specifics of what they had done to the point where who they were could be figured out. I try not to write anything on here that, were I the person reading it, I would find hurtful. Not difficult, mind you, difficult is okay, but hurtful. On a couple of occasions I haven't lived up to that standard, but we are imperfect beings.

Anyway, I will just say that trying to take actors' needs into consideration again, a lot of an performer's persona in the public eye is built on their appearance. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want some random poorly shot digital photo of me in sweatpants having not shaved in four days floating around on a blog devoted to and read by people in the industry I work in. People are sensitive about their appearance. Actors have to be sensitive about their appearance, it's part of their job. So I understand why some (most, even) wouldn't want to do that.

Again, if everything were done with people's consent, it's a different ball game. I think the question is really about when would you give consent to those things? And some people have really clear boundaries and some don't. Certainly I wouldn't think that Devilvet's suggestion of "Why cant it become a tool for collaboration...for instance...The director comes up to the actors and says hey guys tomorrow lets stage a little scene next week for the camera to put on the blog...a prequel to the opening scene," is fine, but I wouldn't get upset at an actor for saying "no, I'm not comfortable with that being on the internet".

Which gets us to.... this is the internet we're talking about here. This thing that never goes away and can be read by anyone pretty much anywhere and will be able to be for years to come. This is a new ballgame, and it makes people nervous. When I was working on the Lincoln Center blogging project, the outright hostility I frequently encountered from people was bracing and, well, completely understandable. I was sitting in their rehearsal rooms taking notes to eventually put them on the internet and they had never met me before. Many of the actors have never heard of me. We ended up having a group-created journal that remained offline and was anonymized because that was the only way to keep everyone involved comfortable. It has to date been only read by like 100 people and it is likely to stay that way.

Questions - Whose permission does a director need to share ideas about the blocking of a intrique scene on stage? Whose permission does the playwright need to talk about whether or not cuts are necessary after the first read thru of a first draft? Whose permission does the audio designer need when he writes about how his new software made yesterday's tech phenominally smoother?

I think all of those things can be talked about without implicating other people, which is why they're sort of a different ball game. WIth my shows, to the extent that i can talk about them without implicating others, I do, and when it means talking about other people, I ask their permission. That's my rule about it. And if they say "no", I don't write about it. I have a pretty clearly defined line on this because that's easier for me to deal with then a grey area. I let other people determine what they're comfortable with.

Also I talk a great deal about my process without talking about rehearsal specifics. I've talked a lot about things like authorial intent, how I approach scripts, set design and space, thoughts about mass-casting-call auditions etc. Most of these things can be talked about without actually talking about the nitty gritty of a specific process...

When I started Parabasis it was (briefly) anonymous and I thought I'd be able to talk in gruesome detail about rehearsal processes. Then it was no longer anonymous (hard to promote your blog without a name attached!) and I thought "Well I'll still do in depth shit but make who I'm talking about unknown cause no one reads theatre blogs, and certainly no one is reading mine" (this was before I wrote this post and Terry linked tome and I suddenly had a readership). Then an actor I was working with found the blog (before I had written anything about that rehearsal process) and said in rehearsal "oh, I found your blog!" and I knew the game was up. Couldn't write about it now! But I try to write about what I can.

(I should also say that Hal Brooks handles negotiating these issues very well in ways that makes me feel that perhaps I am being too cautious who knows....)

Comments

[devilvet]

Thanks for taking some time to answer the questions. I really appreciate it.

I agree that people involved should be able to dictate how and when they collaborate whether that be in the rehearsal room or on a fellow participant's blog.

However, I have noticed alot of the regular bloggers arent blogging in as much depth (I hope that doesnt offend...but there it is) as we used to. So, my goal is to strategize with folks about different sorts of tactics in the hope that we can share more with each other (especially in those siutations where we are blogging over great distances with each other and/or our readers). Or if someone is only focused on promotion, then at least amplify the quality and depth of said promotion.

Here in the windy city, alot of our actors (sure not all, but almost everyone I've worked with) seem to understand the desire and drive behind having the camera at rehearsal. (Many here are very improv based maybe that has something to do with perceived risk while rehearsing? I dont know... ) There has been for me thus far, a scenario similar to the way Slay laid it out on Mac's blog. The people in the room either a) trust that I would not frame them in a negative light or b) that if they really hated a picture or caption...I would take it down.

Since, it isnt about journalistic objectivity...taking an actor's consideration in this sort of thing isnt like being asked to remove a review or likewise. It is merely a matter of honoring trust and respect that hopefully already exists. So, if Jen Thomas says "no photos please", but another actor says 'hey no problem" then the other actor gets to appear...and who knows...perhaps if that sort of thing continues during the rehearsal process others actors (cant speak for Jen T) might think, hey I saw those images yesterday on so-ans-so's blog...not bad. Maybe its ok to take a photo so long as I'm sure to have the necessary time to look my best.

Is anyone out there interested in showing their performers in less than flattering light? I just want to know...I mean I cant imagine a thoughtful, intelligent producer/director who would do something like that and jepordize not only the relationship with the artist, but with the audience as well.

Less like "The Enquirer" or "TMZ"

more like

"The Daily Show" or "Colbert Report"
or "Good Morning America" for your theater...

(Those might be dumb analogies...I'll leave them even though)

-dv

-dv