Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Childish?

Has anyone considered why, in the theatre, we're all still referred to as 'boys' and 'girls'? Isn't that an odd use of terminology? It seems pervasive however. I mean, it's only my personal experience but more often than not people tend not to see what we do as real work, moreover they view it as childish – despite how lucrative it can be.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody looks at performance and sees just a bunch of children playing pretend, I would argue that most do not see it as a genuine career however. I can't believe that this general perception has in any way informed the use of particular language within the theatrical world however. Theatres and theatrical practice are full of quirks and eccentricities, so to focus on something so trivial would appear to be a bit of an over-reaction.

So why should I have spent any time thinking about it at all? Well, I believe it has to do with the performers themselves, not any outside view. In order to do what we do well there is a certain childishness to it all. For dancers, the physical freedom required to throw themselves bodily around the stage is a precarious combination of deft accuracy and enormous skill, along with a child-like playfulness to make it all seem natural and effortless. For singers, or any other more straight-laced performers, having easily accessible emotions and an expressive demeanour is vital for them to be able to do their job well. This is a particularly child-like quality.

The overall youthfulness exhibited by performance professionals has most probably been the biggest contributor to the titles now given to them. Should this be lamented? Or decried? Probably not. Maybe it is childish but the vigour we approach our work with is what makes it worthwhile and us good at it. It may not always be a one-way street however, potentially this child-like mentality and attitude informs not only our professional practice but also our general personality. There's very few theories of learning, cyclical or otherwise, that can incorporate the idea that a mature person will not, by choice, act in a rational, adult fashion. What is the value of a reflecting upon a moment, or period of time, when we were acting in a way we usually would not? Or is that what makes the reflection valuable? Looking at what we did in a spontaneous, 'on-line' moment in the light of a more considered time.

Looking back at things I've written before, it would also be appropriate to revisit what I said before about newcomers and new hires and their ability to learn relevant professional practices. Maybe a certain maturity is required to be able to separate the two aspects of the personality – the child professional necessary for performance and the adult professional needed to learn the skills a performer requires.  

1 comment:

  1. Hi Robin
    this is an interesting blog. You write in a very authoritative style because you are writing about things you have experienced in your career, great. I think it would be useful for you to look at literature (what other people have said) about some of the points you make. When writing in the style you use (great academic style) it is important to back up your comments beyond examples of things YOU have noticed. You raise some interesting points, and there is a lot of meat on the bones for discussion about your observations.

    Have you looked further into the reflection literature. You seem to hint at it when you say
    "there's very few theories of learning, cyclical or otherwise, that can incorporate the idea that a mature person will not, by choice, act in a rational, adult fashion."
    What theories are you referring to here?

    It is interesting that you think reflection that involves looking back at an experience is more considered than 'on-line' reflection. Why do you think that?
    Great, to read your blogs
    Adesola

    ReplyDelete