Up Against It!

Before I start this is not a complaint. To be clear this is a bid for recognition of what small, low/non-profit theatre projects are actually trying to do...

I'm currently in the middle of a youth theatre project, it's exciting and stressful - the usual recipe for what it takes to put on a youth production or working with any theatre project towards the final product I'd say...

As I sit back and evaluate the project so far, I review the feedback, past and present,  from my superiors and producers. Of course feedback is the key to development and as a leader of the project I am completely open and reliant on using the feedback as a different lens to challenge my view point. Am I done with explaining myself - I have no problem with feedback.

However what I'm noticing, time and time again, when it comes to low budget/non-profit projects, as people review and critique them, their is a fundamental factor they seem to either ignore or forget. A little obvious as it may seem, I find I need to point out how difficult it is to create theatre on very little budget and resources. Often the project leader is working all hours in the day to re-edit and make the script work, where in the real world would have a team working on it. The set, costumes and lighting etc would all have their own department where their is enough time for the luxury (yes, luxury) of a production meeting. And of course, a team - people that work together to get the best out of the project. But with lack of funds and resources, one is left with doing a bit of everything and of course the quality of what we do is impeded on. However we keep going, a labour of love for the joy of sharing and making theatre.

My questions for the reviewers: Does the Critique consider the above obstacles? Have they even thought about what is happening despite the given blocks? Before we compare the Fringe to the National Theatre, shall we perhaps compare the processes and ask - What if? What if the project had...? Would it have worked differently if...? In asking what if? We can then move on to the future of the project and celebrate it's next possibility, rather than assessing the surface of the work. In order to promote new writing and young new artists, I urge you next time you critique a low-budget theatre project, consider what the creatives were up against and inform your views on the subtext of the project - not just what meets the eye.

The Edge of Greatness!

My work has made think about how we start the creative process. As art practitioners we tend to overemphasis the starting point as the idea and then the process to an artefact or product. But I've become intrigued by staying in that thinking stage that happens before the idea born. Spending time here in this 'process before the process' stage, I find myself noticing a trend that threads together an approach to creative thinking.

Like Carol Dweck (2012) I liken this thinking stage to a mindset. Rather than being fixated on a 'fixed mindset', focussed on getting my workshop done or planning each rehearsal to a time frame. I really try to adopt a 'growth mindset'. This shouldn't be mistaken for unorganised or badly planned. Rather it's a plan of a process rather than a plan of getting through things. It's the thinking behind the thinking. Many of us fall into the trap of pressured deadlines resulting in ticking boxes and getting getting the job done quickly. Usually this costs us more time in fixing and reworking rushed, undeveloped ideas. This then impacts on our approach, leading to over planning and micro-directing the creative process. Before you know it, the growth mindset is now dormant and you are creatively going through the process, rather than staying with it. 

As I think back I notice I have always maintained an inner mantra as I work. This is to tell myself I am on the edge of greatness. Of course I couldn't be far enough from the edge of greatness and I probably will never get to know what greatness actually is. However it's not about getting to be great at all. At the start of all processes, be it in planning a workshop, a three year curriculum or a creative mentoring session. Telling myself that I am on the edge of greatness with my ideas is a mindset not a proclamation. As creative practitioners we need to start with the idea of creating greatness in everything we do. This growth mindset enables us to become visionary in our method and gives what we do a sense of a creative grounding tone to our processes. 

In everything I do I always believe I'm on the edge of greatness. Though my practice will seldom find greatness, it's in the process of looking for greatness and being on the edge of it, that gives my ideas a sense of integrity and journey. It's a mindset. It's an artefact of my practitioner thinking rather than of my practice itself. 

What is it about the British theatre industry and its obsession with labels?

From classical actor to musical theatre singer actor, TV soap star to triple threat performer, this age old cultural stigma continues to label performance artists and directors and remind people of their place in the theatre arts. At the end my audition technique workshop on the foundation course at Trinity Laban, I'm asked a series of questions about how can young aspiring actors finds the right college for them. These students are on a course designed specifically for preparing them for three year actor training, and while I consider my answer to the key question of identifying the 'right' college, I find myself saddened by the reality of the industry's need to put its artists into boxes. What I'd like to do is tell them to follow their heart, inspire them to be wooed not by the building or the place - but the leaders of the course. As I was once impassioned by the culture of my chosen drama school, I followed my heart and didn't audition anywhere else.

However we need to understand the very step of choosing where to train can be the fundamental key to your later career, obvious as it sounds, but on a far deeper, cultural level. As my niece chooses law degrees she looks at the menu of universities available to her, and I, as the wise post graduate, encourage a gap year or going to a university that she'll enjoy studying at as a huge consideration. But not for these young actors. I found myself warning them about a superficial industry that will make assumptions about their abilities the day they graduate. Musical theater and acting graduates per say will probably work in their respective corner of their industry and it is still unlikely that they will crossover - but why? Was Salvador Dali not painter and sculptor? Why is performance art exempt from variety and diversity.

Be the change you want to see.

Why is this important? I believe that every performance artist should be empowered to be just that very thing, a performance artist. Rather than warning the foundation students at Laban of the snobbery that will control their artistic destiny for the rest of their creative life. I believe it's up to us to challenge this 'theatre arts ordering system' and encourage artist to act, sing, write, devise and reinvent performance for the twenty first Century. How do I begin this revolution? No idea... But I shall start by telling my story. From a non artistic background, I trained in musical theatre and after a career as an actor in mainly musicals, I became interested in teaching acting. I then went off to learn how to work with young actors and give my knowledge academic accreditation. I still have the need for truth and integrity of equal value of any other acting tutor but yes, I confess, whilst I absolutely love watching a small play on the fringe, I also equally like an overture. Of course what I say is laidened in my own bias, but instead of industry experts fighting their corner and promoting this secular environment. Let's celebrate the interdisciplinary ideology the theatre arts could be a platform for and recognise performance diversity. It works on Broadway.

The Power of Critique and Redrafting

The dynamics of teaching performers have changed. Now with growing expectations from external organisations like Ofsted  there are now demands placed on practitioners to use feedback and critique as part of the learning. Like most, my first reaction was to see this as an obstacle - but actually it can be an interesting tool. 

Critique allows students to learn from each other and become accountable for their own ideas. It gives them a glimpse of how the real world would respond to their work, and insight into what is working and what needs redrafting. When the culture is right, students see critique as a gift to redraft their work and reach for a better outcome.

Audience Response is a talk protocol that I've created and use in my classes to empower students in critiquing each other's work and then redrafting their own. My Audience Response protocol is one of many oracy talk protocols that I use in my daily practice, and I believe that it's adaptable for teachers across all disciplines and levels to aid students in redrafting their work through critical talk.

By using a clear and concise response model to students' work, the process empowers them to express their views without directly offending or deflating their peers, and it allows them to receive feedback without reacting defensively.

This is a culture that grows over time. I've found that although students will fixate on trying to get their work "right" at first, after we nurture this approach to critique, they develop a growth mindset about their work and become open to developing it as part of their process.

If you want to develop a culture of critique and redrafting in your studio, below you'll find the Audience Response protocol, and three tips for implementing it.

Audience Response Protocol

1. One group watches another person's/group's piece of their work.

2. The group watching becomes a critical audience. They keep in mind what they feel that the presenting group/person should keep, introduce, or question.

3. Once the play or presentation is over, you'll discuss the work. The audience sits in a circle with you, and the students being critiqued sit in an outer circle, facing the centre.

4. Using the protocol of keep, introduce, question so the audience responds critically to the piece they've just seen. They may agree or disagree with each other, or build upon each other's ideas, helping the performers to understand what's working, what's not working, and what they can change. You can also add your own critique during this time.

5. A person from the outer circle will scribe the responses, and the rest (if in a group) will observe what the audience thinks of their work. At this point, it's important that the outer circle observes the reaction to their work without commenting on it.

6. It's important to insist on critical, diplomatic language during the process so you can embedded an academic, non-personalised approach to critique. 

7. At the end, those critiqued get an opportunity to first clarify anything that they feel needs clarification, and then express what aspects of their work they will redraft based on the critique received. 

8. The groups/person then swap. The presenters become the critical audience, and the critical audience members become the presenters.

3 Tips for Using the Audience Response Protocol

1. It Takes Time to Build a Culture

The first time you try the protocol, it will probably go wrong. Students may find it strange or feel that they can't help but respond out of protocol. I embed talk protocols in many of my activities as part of a routine. And like any routine, you need to nurture it over time to perfect it. Your role -- especially at the beginning -- is important. Make sure that all students are involved. If your students speak out of protocol or too personally, stop and guide them back on track. Over time, you want your students to lead the critique themselves.

2. Hard on the Content, Soft on the Person

You need to model and insist on judging the ideas and not the person. As your students learn to appreciate being critiqued, this approach will come more naturally to them. A negative judgment like, "Sarah, I really think you shouldn't do that monologue. I think you should change it," becomes, "I think that Sarah should really think about the purpose of her monologue. What is it aiming for and is it serving that purpose?" The critiquer doesn't look the person in the eye and criticise him or her. The critical audience is having a discussion with each other; it's done in a safe protocol with an emphasis on what is best for the piece of art or artist, not the person involved.

3. Use the Feedback

What I learned through creating and using the Audience Response protocol with my students is that they either forgot the feedback or ignored it. I noticed that my students' work wasn't improving and realised that, although I was giving them an opportunity to critique, they didn't know what to do with their feedback. I now encourage them to record their feedback, and I've included their decision-making process on what will be redrafted within the Audience Response protocol. In step seven (see above), students voice three things that they'll commit to change by the next session, and then the critique cycle continues. You can use the Audience Response protocol on the same piece multiple times to continue redrafting and developing it.

Critique is embedded into a growth mindset culture. Rather than having students fixated on getting it done or being the best, by using critique protocols and nurturing the redrafting process, we can create a culture that builds on the experiential development of becoming something rather than completing it.

How to Infuse the Arts into Core Curriculum (and Why It Matters)

This is the heart of what I do: think less like an educator and more like an artist, or in my case (as tutor), a producer and director. When I worked with project based learning (PBL), I realised that by placing art at the centre of any curriculum, it gives you a pedagogical power far greater than any other approach in education.

I currently pair up with a history department. When I first encounter a Humanities curriculum content, I don't think about the list of names or dates the students need to learn. With my background in professional theatre, I instinctively think about the stories that exist within the content. Approaching the content like an artist, I think about how -- in the real world with an ensemble -- would I bring this idea alive. How will I make it matter to my students? Using theatre in this way not only gives drama students stories to emotionally attach knowledge to, but turning these stories into theater productions provides students with a world in which their knowledge lives on after the life of their play.

To learn content is one thing, but to fuse it with a challenging form of art compels students to research it, know it, and be it enough to reinterpret and communicate it. It brings an enjoyable, engaging process with high outcomes. In a time where arts are being tossed aside in schools, I think it is time to realise that if we place art at the centre of our curriculum, the learning environment transforms classrooms into stages and galleries, facts into stories, and memories into legacies.

If you want to bring real, authentic art into your practice, here are three tips to get you started.

3 Tips to Infuse the Arts Into Your Core Curriculum

1. Approach Your Curriculum Like an Artist
In the first step to creating your curriculum, think less about ‘tick boxes’ or a list of things you want students to learn and more about realising the content. Just like a composer, director, or painter, focus on a way to make it come alive -- literally. Whether it's exploring Medieval Britain through tapestry, fusing the idea of black holes and spacetime with contemporary dance and movement, or expressing memoirs of World War II through cabaret and jive. The links are endless.

The only thing I recommend is don’t be general. Great artists don’t just put on a play or just mould a sculpture; I’d like to think they are inspired. If you make the artform concise and specific, you’ll get your students hungry for outstanding products. Look at what is already out there in the arts, recreate it, or better yet, inspire your own artform.

2. A Rich Process Means a Rich Product
Rather than seeing making your piece of art as a series of lesson plans or a concise rehearsal plan, see it as a project with a loose schedule. Start with a brief, then give your students transparent deadlines for the overall process and milestones that they need to reach to keep on track.

Immerse your students in the genre of the art they are making. Empower them with tools and skills like giving them project timelines to plan their own time, allowing specific management roles within their groups or setting specific harkness debates on targeted knowledge they need to know to work as independent artists; then use critique and authentic audiences to help them redraft their work. These are all ways of making sure the process is as rich as any profession in their field. This is important to ensure the students are engaged throughout the process and that they actually care about needing to know the content in order to make their challenging piece of art.

3. Cultivate Artist-Researchers and Treat the Content and Art as one Subject
It is important that you don’t split up the knowledge-based drama research with the creative devising. I believe all rehearsals, workshops, lectures, and researching should take place in one world. Only then do the students see their learning as a living thing rather than a series of words or numbers on a page.

Through making a piece of art, your students will probably discover that they don’t know enough to carry on or that their knowledge isn’t accurate. When questions arise in the making process, this doesn’t mean that they make up the answers, nor does it mean they need to wait till they're in their knowledge-based lesson to find out. Like all expert actors, artists, or writers, the practitioner needs to become an artist-researcher in their field. Whether it’s independent research or interventions lead by the teacher, what the students do not know points toward what they need to know.

Art Brings Learning to Life

In this political time, the arts are being ‘side-lined’ and it's becoming a shrinking area in education. The fusion of arts with core content is important because rather than humanities or science being knowledge on a page, which will be recited in an exam, art reflects life and makes knowledge, stories, and facts come alive. It brings color and life and interpretation to those things. You get engagement from students. You get students caring about what they're learning about. Because when art is involved, I believe people care about what they're doing. The arts add an emotional, creative response to core content. Transforming learning into making art not only engages students, it allows the content to live through them and provides a purpose to communicating knowledge to the world.

NB. This blog was originally written for Edutopia and has been adapted for this blog. The original can be found here: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/infuse-arts-into-core-curriculum-ahmet-ahmet?utm_campaign=node_author_alert&utm_source=edutopia&utm_medium=email