Austin Improv

There are only two rules:

1. Don't do anything as an improvisor out of fear
2. Have fun

valetoile wrote:There are only two rules:

1. Don't do anything as an improvisor out of fear
2. Have fun

Not enough rules

valetoile wrote:There are only two rules:

1. Don't do anything as an improvisor out of fear
2. Have fun

Too many rules

valetoile wrote:There are only two rules:

1. Don't do anything as an improvisor out of fear
2. Have fun

If the world is overrun by robots who are afraid to not have fun, we can use these two rules to make their CPUs explode.

It will be the best Isaac Asimov short story ever.

ratliff wrote:

valetoile wrote:There are only two rules:

1. Don't do anything as an improvisor out of fear
2. Have fun

Too many rules

There are only two rules:
1. Coco rules
2. Ratliff rules

there is no right or wrong in improv, just stronger choices.


i dont totally agree with that but it may end up as a jacket quote on my improv book one day, so i wanted to put it out there.

Jeremy, I remember you saying that once, and it stuck with me. I've totally stolen it and passed it off as my own delicious thought.

I think it's pretty right on, at least with the implication that we have to honor and commit to said strong choices.

beardedlamb wrote:there is no right or wrong in improv, just stronger choices.


i dont totally agree with that but it may end up as a jacket quote on my improv book one day, so i wanted to put it out there.

Truer words have never been said.

The guide's point is to get people avoid mistakes, but I guess I made it a bit too negative.

At the moment, I'm working on a friendly, more in-depth guide, which focuses more on the mistakes themselves, avoidability, and examples of how to steer scenes involving the mistakes. I'll probably include the quote in the opening.

Also, to answer Coco about how tongue-in-cheek the bailing strategy is, it is meant to be tongue-in-cheek in this guide, but it's listed there for a reason: it's a last minute strategy if your partner is being a total dick. Also, I'll admit I liked the gagging example, too, but only focusing on absurd scenes limits one's versatility as an improviser. (this will also be addressed in the newer, friendlier guide).

Jastroch wrote:Jeremy, I remember you saying that once, and it stuck with me. I've totally stolen it and passed it off as my own delicious thought.

I think it's pretty right on, at least with the implication that we have to honor and commit to said strong choices.

Committing to a choice is what makes it strong.

I'm so tired of the phrase "there are no rules." Is it just the word "rule" that everyone's so hung up on? If that's it, I have about as much desire to debate the existence of rules as I do the proper way to pronounce the acronym U R L

Is "there are no rules" just a way for us to all feel like we're all in control and zen like artists? Of course there are no absolutes. That's true of any artistic pursuit. Period. But when someone is learning a new artistic skill it helps to start with the basics and expand from there. If someone in a drawing I class drew a face with two eyes on the same side of the face, abandoning all concept of perspective, it would be pointed out to them.

If there are no rules, how do we justify the fact that we're making people pay us to learn a craft? People who are new to anything want some rules. They want some boundaries. It gives them restrictions to work within, so they can focus on one aspect at a time. I'm not saying that there are THE RULES AND THEY CAN NEVER BE BROKEN. I don't know of *anyone* whose brain is worth a damn who ever thinks that.

And "don't do anything out of fear" has never been proven wrong to me, so I think it's a fabulous guideline. Or mantra. Or posit. Fuck you.

Feh, I don't want to be involved in this discussion. I should stick to my personal rule of not getting into philosophical debates over the internet.

Sure, there are rules to improv. I just think 90% of the things people define as rules actually impede improv.


From my own experience developing as an improviser (and also what I've witnessed as a teacher) if I had all the things Spaz outlined in my brain while trying to do a scene, my brain would have melted.

kbadr wrote:I have about as much desire to debate the existence of rules as I do the proper way to pronounce the acronym U R L

You say the letters, if you say "Earl", then you're a faggotwhore

kbadr wrote:I'm so tired of the phrase "there are no rules."

Then you should probably stop repeating it every time someone says it. You’re totally falling into my viral marketing trap.

Seriously, K, why do you get so verklempt whenever somebody approaches this differently than you do? Ask anybody in my classes: I constantly lavish praise on Pgraph’s professionalism, commitment, group mind, and sense of play. (And between you and me, if somebody tells me she absolutely knows she wants to do narrative, I send her to you or Shana without hesitation.) I just don’t teach that kind of improv. Hell, I don’t even teach the same way that other ColdTowne instructors do. Why is this a problem? It’s not just copacetic, it’s fantastic. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

You may be right about the semantics. I for one prefer “tools” to “rules.” It may seem like a small difference to the experienced improviser, but I think it takes a lot of the shame and fear out of the process.

kbadr wrote:If someone in a drawing I class drew a face with two eyes on the same side of the face, abandoning all concept of perspective, it would be pointed out to them.

Right, because the specific function of a Drawing I class is to make realistic representations of visible reality, and there’s a set of principles that help you do that. But no decent teacher would ever suggest that’s the only way to make art. (Nor would he suggest that two eyes on the same side of the face is always wrong, unless he wants to fight Picasso’s angry half-naked ghost.)

If you’re trying to create a specific final product (a Harold, a narrative, a Maestro), you’re going to follow certain rules. But they’re specific to what you’re trying to achieve. They don’t necessarily apply across the board; they’re just an arbitrary (and fun!) means to an end.

kbadr wrote:If there are no rules, how do we justify the fact that we're making people pay us to learn a craft? People who are new to anything want some rules. They want some boundaries. It gives them restrictions to work within, so they can focus on one aspect at a time. I'm not saying that there are THE RULES AND THEY CAN NEVER BE BROKEN. I don't know of *anyone* whose brain is worth a damn who ever thinks that.

I know quite a lot of good improvisers who think that rules can never be broken. A lot of them are in my beginning classes. They think that the rules can never be broken because, for a lot of people, THAT’S THE DEFINITION OF A RULE. Hence my preference for “tool,” which implies a certain optional quality.

What do I teach if I don’t teach rules? I hope what I teach is situational awareness: a deeper connection to your scene partner, a more nuanced understanding of the possibilities and pitfalls of any given moment, and a richer appreciation of how much raw material you created at the top of the scene. Not that I‘ve mastered any of this myself, but that’s the gist of it. None of these are rules. They’re skills, which is entirely different.

You’re absolutely right that it’s easier to teach rules than to guide people into a state of heightened awareness. Too bad for me, then.

Because the glory of the marketplace is that if what students really, really want is a nicely typeset list of rules to follow, they’ll eventually gravitate to the teachers that give them that, and I’ll be left alone in my sad little emocrib, listening to godspeed! you black emperor and muttering darkly under my breath about how there aren’t any rules in music or sex, either.

Saying yes, avoiding questions, and making active choices are convenient exercises to counteract a lifetime’s worth of learned behaviors. When you’re rewiring people’s neural pathways, sometimes you need drastic correctives. But for me the goal is always to open up the full range of possibilities inherent in that person, not to assign them a new set of pylons to navigate.

I complain about how religion leads to conflict, and then I create my own.

Religion, or conflict?

First one, then the other.

ratliff wrote:Seriously, K, why do you get so verklempt whenever somebody approaches this differently than you do?

Because simply saying the phrase "there are no rules" whenever anyone mentions or implies the idea that there are tools/rules/concepts that could help make learning improv easier seems incredibly dismissive to me.

And I am a teacher and performer who firmly believes that none of the so-called rules are absolutes, and I make sure to say that whenever one of them comes up in a class.

ratliff wrote:Because the glory of the marketplace is that if what students really, really want is a nicely typeset list of rules to follow, they’ll eventually gravitate to the teachers that give them that

They will be hard-pressed to find those teachers in Austin.
That's the other reason I seem to get so verklempt over the phrase "there are no rules". I am not at all annoyed, frustrated, or angry that somebody approaches this differently than I do. (and, to be honest, it's incredibly insulting and heart-breaking that someone would even imply that.) I am frustrated that there is, apparently, a severe misunderstanding within the community about what my approach is. This discussion is too broad for a silly forum.