Assumptions

[Jastroch]

FACT:
Coldtowne worships God.

SLANDER!!!!!!!!


oooooooo, eric, you found that button and you pushed that button. Look above, you might just see a tiny piano become a whole lot bigger.

Well, with the exception of Dan Rubin. And Old Money, if you count him.

[Jastroch]

I have a shit-ton to say about these exchanges, but my computer's been broken and I lack the patience to chime in.

This whole thing is bordering on silly.

Since we've come here, I've found that Austin has been 100% supportive of any creative direction we've wanted to take. And not just the improv community. Guess how many times we (or our any other improv troupe) got their pictures in the paper. The answer is zero, unless you count the magazine I edited right out of college.

That said, there's definetly a lack of understanding or some serious miscommunication going on as a whole. Most times I've brought up Del Close in person or on the board, the Harold and it's contribution to the practice of improv, I've been met with dismissive responses.

Understanding that many of us come from different training backgrounds, I think there's a little bit of a cognitive disconnect here. When someone writes "Improv Guru Del Close" or "The Harold is very influential" etc... it's not the same as saying "Keith Johnstone is stupid and has had no influence on improv and isn't worth studying." The reverse also applies.

I think, as a general statement, people are just getting a little defensive because their so passionate about their work. It's like challenging someone to a karate fight by telling them your Flying Crane Style can beat their Drunken Boxing. Right? Anyone? Drunken Master II?

Thank you.

[Harold]

Harold raped me!

Come on. You were asking for it.

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

As a native Austinite who's been in the scene for a while, i'll throw a few cents into the pond. I don't think there's any kind of mass cliquishness or resentment for one school of prov versus another. At least, i've never seen it, heard it or felt it myself (this most likely because i HAVE no school of prov, beyond "Jeremy thinks this might be a cool idea/Jeremy thinks my idea might be cool/what the hell is Ben thinking?").

I think from the very beginnings of the scene, people on the whole have been incredibly accepting. When we were first starting out in the Jury and finding our feet, we were just a bunch of cocky kids fresh out of high school and wanting to take on the world. But we found some incredible mentors and friends in the likes of Mike D'Alonzo, Craig Kotfas, Shannon McCormick, Shana Merlin, David Lampe and others who dominated the Austin improv scene at the time but still took time to hang out with our lame asses, do shows with us, come to parties, talk about what worked and what didn't. It wasn't called as such, but there was something of a community back then. I was kind of on the fringe of it myself, doing a lot of scripted theatre while my compatriots were playing Gorilla and Micetro with Theatresports/We Could Be Heroes/Heroes of Comedy/Are We Even Still Around Anymore? I didn't get to go touring with them as often or do the festivals (until Jeremy decided we should start our own) because i was usually rehearsing or performing in another show at the time. So i didn't get to see these different regions and philosophies for a long time. Hell, just the notion of short form vs. long form came as a surprise to me when we started moving towards the latter. And even when we started Out of Bounds or doing joint shows with out of town troupes from College Station, Dallas, Boston and New Haven...i never thought to quantify any of the differing kinds of prov i saw into "this" type or "that" type. I knew what i liked to watch and what worked for me as a performer, and discovering something new to fall into that camp was a constant delight.

And then the scene started to fall apart. Audiences started to dwindle, internal politics drove some performers away, Jeremy decided it was time for the Jury to hang up our saddles and it was hard for me to want to do improv that WASN'T with the Jury. I'd do some No Shame here and there, and that was a lot of fun. And i stuck on with OOB and got to see a lot of different kinds of prov and sketch, which was fun...but didn't make me want to get back into the scene. Then Ben convinced me to try out for Start Trekkin' and i got a taste back for my old love of longform improv. Jon decided to start up the Sicks so i was around the Hideout a bit more often and got to know the new crop of improvisers who were coming up from out of the classes and they were damn good. By the time we did the most recent OOB, the ground was ripe for the cycle to thrive anew. People were into doing improv and wanted their voices heard on matters of scheduling and publicity to help shore up the problems of audience and internal squabbles and schisms from before. And it's a constantly self correcting system, from what i've seen. There is no fanatical devotion to a particular business model, and it's open to experimentation...which is key. New troupes and younger improvisers seem encouraged to try things out, permutate into different troupes and formats...which could create a glut, admittedly, but has produced some wonderfully diverse shows and performers. Personally, i think that IS the Austin style. Performers from different schools of thought, philosophies, styles, geographic locations, backgrounds, educations...come together and bounce everything off of each other to find that unique alchemy that works best onstage. A fusion, a hybrid...a freakish mutant running amok amongst the populace. Personally, in my experience, Austin improvisers...domestic, imported or premium...are incredibly accepting and inclusive. Those who aren't don't usually last long around here.

the only real schisms i've ever seen in the community have been sometimes between short form and long form (i personally prefer the latter, but do not degrade the merits of the former). But that's always seemed more like preference and friendly discussion/debate. Then for a time when the Sicks first started out, it seemed like there was an attitude of looking down on sketch as being inferior to improv that a lot of us felt from various corners. But even that has faded with time as we went on and met our fellow travelers in folks like the Plurals and Hoover's Blanket. It seems like now moreso than ever, sketch is readily accepted as part of the community and "scene" beyond just allowing sketch troupes into OOB. I think it's good. It builds an even more diverse scene, which as i mentioned before is one of our great strengths.

and if anyone wants a hug from a native Austinite to feel like they're welcomed as one of our own...my arms are here for you.

[beardedlamb]

Austin: The melding pot of Improv.

[ChrisTrew.Com]

(gosh, can't we get No Shame going again...?)

Hey, don't talk to me about it. ....

Who do we talk to about it? I think there's a little space called the space that will have some space.

[mcnichol]

For the record, everyone's been really supportive and it has been a melting pot and, yes, this whole thing is silly. I agree with all of that. I don't disagree with anyone's experience of this having been a really supportive community of great great people at all -- it has been for me too.

My feelings are more like this is a great big family of people and everyone gets along. But then, like in a big family, there's unresolved crap under the surface that people don't seem to want to talk about and, hopefully, resolve in some sense, even though it seems to color people's feelings and actions. I'd hoped to get out in the open and resolve these things...

...things like this:

a more experienced improviser has told me that, to many people, the harold symbolizes the arrogance and insularity of the chicago school of improvisers, but i find that explanation uncompelling.

I'm glad that John mentioned that this was somebody talking about how other people feel about this stuff and not that someone who actually feels this way telling him this.

But as Jastroch also mentioned, there is a knee-jerk reaction to just dismiss other types of improv based on uninformed assumptions.

I won't continue to propagate this thread, but I'd truly hoped people who feel this way would actually chime in and talk about it rather than remaining silent. I'm excited to keep building this community along with everyone else, building upon what began long ago with Shana and Sean and through the Jury and the Cupholders and everything. But I'd also be just as excited to clear any misconceptions and talk out feelings and assumptions about other types of improv and the people who practice it that seem to bubble under the surface.

I don't need a hug (though I'll certainly take Jordan up on one) -- I'd rather people just be REAL and on the level in here as I've tried to be.

[shando]

a more experienced improviser has told me that, to many people, the harold symbolizes the arrogance and insularity of the chicago school of improvisers, but i find that explanation uncompelling.

I'm glad that John mentioned that this was somebody talking about how other people feel about this stuff and not that someone who actually feels this way telling him this.

As one of the people to whom this middle person was presumably talking, let me clarify my sentiments on this subject once and for all, before never speaking of this ludicrously boring topic ever ever again. Earlier I used the Dead/Deadhead analogy, but that's not a good one, because there's nothing aestheically repugnant to me at all about proponents of any style of improv in the way Deadheads can be tedious. So let's take it back to the sports analogy where this whole boring thread came from when Jeremy and Justin were talking futbol and football.

Instead of that sport, I'd like to use baseball. Look, let's say you love baseball. One can intellectually and objectively understand that historically the Yankees have played baseball beautifully, as a franchise better than anyone. The history of baseball is in many ways the history of the Yankees. At the least, the history of baseball has been domintaed by the Yankees. The history of improvisational theater in the United States has been even more thoroughly dominated by individuals trained in Chicago and by disciples of Del Close. It's a fact. You can site all the famous people, the record books, etc. But if you're a fan of say the Baltimore Orioles or in my hapless case, the Kansas City Royals, the ubiquity and self-assuredness of Yankees fans can make you cranky after a while. It has nothing to do with the Yankee fan's personal demeanor, it has noting to do with the Yankee fan being arrogant or insular, and it has nothing to do with how much one cares about baseball or how open-minded on is. Sometimes you just want to see someone else in the playoffs for once. If that very human response is one that Yankee fans can't understand or even acknowledge, then no amount of talking is going to help. I've seen plenty of people who might fall onto my side of the fence say, "Yeah, all forms of improv are cool, whatever works blah blah blah," but I've yet to see someone else say "Yeah, I could see how if I wasn't already down with Del techniques, constantly hearing Del is great could get a bit tedious."

But as Jastroch also mentioned, there is a knee-jerk reaction to just dismiss other types of improv based on uninformed assumptions.

There has also been this knee-jerk reaction that if someone, like say Wes, says "I'm not interested in learning the Harold" that he's being knee-jerk dismissive and is being closed-minded. In fact, that reaction is even more than likely to provoke the very crankiness I describe above. It's why calling Wes out in the classes thread (admittedly not the place to do that, but I doubt reaction would have been any different if he had expressed his sentimens on the theory thread) only led to more sardonic (right, Wes?) posts. It's why I'm all for this...

I'd rather people just be REAL and on the level in here as I've tried to be.

but I'm not holding my breath. I think people have tried to be real only to be told they're not open-minded or that they harbor misconceptions. So I just hope that we're not being held to some standard that says "Be real, but you better only express acceptable opinions that prove you are open minded as I define it." There are people, myself included, who feel there are plenty of people continuing the legacy of Del Close and that the world of improv will progress just fine if we choose not to join in. It's not that we're closed-minded, misinformed, or uniterested in Del's work or the work of anyone who comes out of that tradition, or that we don't like you or your work. It's just that we've decided to take or own paths (with the freedom of course to both change our minds and steal liberally from Del or anyone else); and you know what? The history of art is filled with people who have made those kinds of decisions. See one Del Close for example. I think it's why sentiments like "Now we can begin to create an Austin style of improv" can sound particularly galling to those of us who've thought that's what we had been doing all along.

[ratliff]

i feel like i was a little dismissive about some of these posts earlier, so in the prevailing spirit of endless reclarification, i offer this:

based on my experience with other similar communities in completely different contexts, i think austin improv is at a really exciting point in its development right now, and that there's an excellent chance that it will explode culturally (and, dare i say it, commercially) in the next few years. i am NOT being dismissive of what's already been accomplished, which is amazing; i'm just saying that it's still unknown to a lot of people who might be interested.

i think that as the community grows larger, divisions will naturally emerge, and they won't all be as open-minded and mutually respectful as those on this thread.

that's an uncomfortable prospect, but i have never seen a voluntary community based on something other than money where that didn't happen sooner or later. it's painful, but i really think it's a necessary step in the growth process. it doesn't have to be permanent or fatal, and in my experience it's usually neither, but one way to make it a lot worse than it has to be is to cling to the idea that everyone needs to agree about everything all the time. (and i don't think that anyone is saying that here, but i have seen it happen elsewhere.)

i would much rather be a part of a community with some genuine friction generated by different personalites and viewpoints than one in which everyone's walking on eggshells because they don't want to shatter the fragile consensus that has been grudgingly agreed to.

to repeat: i DON'T see this right now in austin improv, but i've seen it before in many other similar situations. it's no fun, and it's bad for creativity.

the good news is that institutions and communities that make it through this period are stronger, more diverse, and more interesting.

and in 2026, when austin improv is a world-renowned phenomenon in the same way that austin music was in 2006, the same people who once almost came to blows over which group closes the show will be quietly drinking together in the back of the bar laughing about it, and their friendship will be made stronger and deeper by the thing that once threatened to end it. (some of my best friends in austin are people that i once wouldn't speak to for months at a time.)

IN MY IGNORANT OPINION, austin improv needs people who are steely-eyed hardasses about making money, and it needs people who don't give two shits about money. it needs people who think art is more important than hurt feelings, and it needs people who would rather embarrass themselves onstage than be be cruel to someone. it needs people who are disciplined, rigorous performers whose work is always professional, and it needs inspired fuckups who take ridiculous chances and who call even the most obvious premises into question. it needs people who are passionately devoted to specific forms and approaches, and it needs generalists who see the larger patterns and similarities that run through all this work.

even if i'm dead wrong (always a distinct possibility), and austin improv doesn't actually need these people, it's probably going to get them. and if it gets all these people, they're going to collide with each other and get banged up sometimes.

those wounds will hurt. they will also heal.

[Jastroch]

Just to make a point about what Shannon said, re: being sick of hearing about how great Del Close is, etc...

I think that

1) It's not coming from a place of superiority. It's coming from a place of love and sharing. As in, "Hey, here are all these wonderfully awesome people I respect who haven't been exposed to what I've been exposed to. I want to share my knowledge with them and show them these ideas I love, just as they've shown me a lot of stuff they love."

2) In terms of creating an Austin style and what not, I'd like to point out that few, if any of us no matter what our backgrounds, are completely dogmatic when it comes to our improv philosophies. I think most (experienced) improvisors understand that any improv "rule" can and should be thrown out the window once you understand them.

A fun quote* that I should probably not add from Del from Jeff Grigg's awesome book about Close, Guru:

"The [1999 Big Stinkin' improv fest in Austin] was fun, but there are a bunch of shits running around there who read Impro and think they know everything there is to know about improv."

Okay, fess up: who took a workshop with Del??

* Taken from memory, but it's almost right on.

[shando]

"The [1999 Big Stinkin' improv fest in Austin] was fun, but there are a bunch of shits running around there who read Impro and think they know everything there is to know about improv."

Nice. I moved here in 2000, but presumably some of the people he's talking about are people who trained me, and one in particular who owns a theater without which all of us wouldn' have had a place to play for the past several years. My decision to not worship at the altar of Del Close just got a lot easier.

[Jules]

Peace and Love. Its amazing to see the discussion and I too, find that this community has been so open hearted and relatively schism-less, though its probably natural to have a few develop over time. Its all in how we handle the growth.
Smart talented people usually handle it pretty well.
And I"m available for fluffing.

[Jastroch]

"The [1999 Big Stinkin' improv fest in Austin] was fun, but there are a bunch of shits running around there who read Impro and think they know everything there is to know about improv."

Nice. I moved here in 2000, but presumably some of the people he's talking about are people who trained me, and one in particular who owns a theater without which all of us wouldn' have had a place to play for the past several years. My decision to not worship at the altar of Del Close just got a lot easier.

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned that. I found it amusing, more than anything. He was, to put it mildly, a dick.

[acrouch]

... I'd truly hoped people who feel this way would actually chime in and talk about it rather than remaining silent.

Okay, I'll wade into this. I took Justin's Harold workshop this weekend, I'm going to Chicago later this month to study at Annoyance. I've read Spolin's Improvisation for the Theatre, Something Wonderful Right Away, The Art of Chicago Longform, and Truth in Comedy (at least three times). And yet it's a conscious daily effort to be respectful and non-judgmental of "Chicago style." Because it's not what I grew up with, because it's more popular, because I just don't find it as compelling.

But I'm trying real hard, and I'm getting better acquainted with useful concepts. "Finding the game" is a great tool for exploring different kinds of scenes. Exploring "pattern" and "theme" is an exciting way of building more complex layers into the work. The commitment to "point of view" bolsters the struggle to portray real characters on stage. "Group mind" encourages ensemble in ways that my training didn't. Etc.

These are excellent supplemental concepts that I look forward to incorporating into the frickin' amazing improv education that was and always will be my first love. Improv is a ridiculously young art form and we haven't even scratched the surface yet. We're in such a unique position in Austin -- so many styles to sythesize, so many talented, passionate, open people -- it would be a shame if we didn't capitalize on it.

[Andy P]

To understand something new you have to apply your past experiences and knowledge, and form a path back to something you already understand. That path can be straight/crooked, wide/narrow, easy/difficult to navigate, have gaps/no gaps, or any of a number of infinite possible configurations. Your past experiences and knowledge include a lot of assumptions and information that you did not experience first hand. Not only that, but your experiences are unique to you, so no two people are going to have the same understanding of something. Then there is the level of understanding that you want to attain, as well as the motives behind wanting to know something. Example:

Person A: Non-improvisor. Wants to know what a Harold is so that they can identify one when going to a show, or be able to talk about it with an improvisor friend.

Person B: Invented the form. Found the that the form works to help others get better at the improv, so wants everyone doing improv to learn the form.

Both of these people present the Harold differently to others, spend different amounts of time on it, have different intensity levels, different motives for learning and teaching if applicable.

I apologize if you read this post expecting to find a point to it. I'm going to go sit naked under a tree and meditate now.