Austin Improv

LuBu McJohnson wrote:I complain about how religion leads to conflict, and then I create my own.

Religion, or conflict?

First one, then the other.

Kareem, I propose a temporary truce in order to hunt down and kill the freethinker.

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

kbadr wrote: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.

Apology time!

I’ve benefited greatly from your coaching, and I know full well you don’t teach by handing out a set of rules. I was setting up a straw man for comic purposes, which in this context was cheap and unhelpful. Please refer to my earlier post (or talk to anyone in my classes) to see what I really think of you.

My point, less toolishly expressed, is that there’s room for exactly as many approaches to teaching as students are willing to underwrite.

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

Mistakes? It's improv. Telling people to improvise to "avoid mistakes" has them improvising from a place of fear, not a place of power. Whether the thing is tongue in cheek or not, mistakes is not the word I would ever use. Mistakes imply judgment (whether of self or of others) and judgment has no place in improv.

From Susan Messing: "Fuck it. People don’t judge my mistakes unless I telegraph that I’m an idiot."

Well spoken Cook.

Fear in action is the only mistake.

valetoile wrote:

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

I agree 100% with valerie's first set of rules, and to a lesser percentage with her second set.

scook wrote:

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

Mistakes? It's improv. Telling people to improvise to "avoid mistakes" has them improvising from a place of fear, not a place of power. Whether the thing is tongue in cheek or not, mistakes is not the word I would ever use. Mistakes imply judgment (whether of self or of others) and judgment has no place in improv.

From Susan Messing: "Fuck it. People don’t judge my mistakes unless I telegraph that I’m an idiot."

I am afraid of stephanie.

scook wrote:Mistakes imply judgment (whether of self or of others) and judgment has no place in improv.

That's why you always get into every improv festival you apply to! And that's also why nobody ever claims to be "the best" in their city or of their style, or the very inventor of any artform, because that would imply a judgment somewhere.

*sigh* It was a nice thought.

kaci_beeler wrote:

scook wrote:Mistakes imply judgment (whether of self or of others) and judgment has no place in improv.

That's why you always get into every improv festival you apply to! And that's also why nobody ever claims to be "the best" in their city or of their style, or the very inventor of any artform, because that would imply a judgment somewhere. :shock:

*sigh* It was a nice thought.

Just because other people make judgments doesn’t mean I have to.

Steph probably meant judgment onstage, but my internal judge is so overdeveloped I have to slap it down in the off hours as well.

ratliff wrote:...You’re absolutely right that it’s easier to teach rules than to guide people into a state of heightened awareness

....When you’re rewiring people’s neural pathways, sometimes you need drastic correctives.

I thought the following bit of animation history was an interesting parallel to this improv discussion.

In our animation program, we teach the "12 Principles of Animation" that were honed by Disney's "nine old men". The principles were created to guide the creation of realistic, volumetric motion -- the "illusion of life". By using the vocabulary of the principles, the men were able to communicate with their team on how to create realistic looking motion.

However, the "Disney" look is just ONE look. There is another look called the "UPA" look. The "UPA" (United Productions of America) studio was founded in the wake of the 1941 Disney animation strike when several lead animators (including Chuck Jones) left to express design ideas considered radical by other established studios. These ideas of "design in motion" are tied to the "graphic design principles" that have been around for a very, very long time.

In contrast to the Disney look, the UPA look is a very stylized, abstract, and "cartoony". The production methods are "limited" and effective for cranking out a ton of work quickly, ideal for TV or web series. However, though we teach our students both styles of animation, most employers want students to be able to express weight convincingly -- in a realistic way -- so that is the focus of our program.

Both are profitable, enjoyable styles of animation that persist today. Both use a set of "principles" to provide a vocabulary to dialogue about a KIND of movement.

[SIDE NOTE: UPA went under during the "red scare" when a lot of their creative force was laid off due to suspicious communist affiliations. Disney was/is such a politically powerful studio, I wonder if they had anything to do with the closure.]

valetoile wrote:There are only two rules:

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

I want to amend the first rule, if I may.

1. Don't do or stop yourself from doing anything as an improviser out of fear

Many times, I see people (often, when I look in the mirror) not do something on stage (even to the point of coming on stage when you can tell they want to) because they're afraid of what will happen. Here's a few quotes that say it better than I might.

"I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear." -- Nelson Mandela

"The greatest mistake you can make in life is continually fearing that you'll make one." -- Elbert Hubbard

"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear." -- Mark Twain

kbadr wrote: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.

There are different ways to pronounce the acronym URL?

ratliff wrote: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.

I like that. Referring to them as tools and not rules. We think of rules as things that keep us from doing something. Tools are what we use to build with. I also like guidelines because of the word's inherent meaning.

kbadr wrote:This discussion is too broad for a silly forum.

I don't think so at all. Sure, these conversations are always good in person. For one thing, it's a lot easier to see intent and have clarification of words because of body language and inflection. However, there's nothing silly or debasing about having stimulating conversations online. It's the written word, your thoughts, made public. Or as public as any message board can be. As someone who has been an active member of another message board for more than a decade now and a moderator of various forums there for most of that time, I definitely think it's OK to have conversations of every level and degree online.

I can be a talkative bastard off and online though, so what do I know?

kaci_beeler wrote:

scook wrote:Mistakes imply judgment (whether of self or of others) and judgment has no place in improv.

That's why you always get into every improv festival you apply to! And that's also why nobody ever claims to be "the best" in their city or of their style, or the very inventor of any artform, because that would imply a judgment somewhere.

*sigh* It was a nice thought.

You really didn't know what she meant? Really? C'mon...Really?
That's nonsense.

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:

kaci_beeler wrote:

scook wrote:Mistakes imply judgment (whether of self or of others) and judgment has no place in improv.

That's why you always get into every improv festival you apply to! And that's also why nobody ever claims to be "the best" in their city or of their style, or the very inventor of any artform, because that would imply a judgment somewhere.

*sigh* It was a nice thought.

You really didn't know what she meant? Really? C'mon...Really?
That's nonsense.

Mostly it's just funny to me, since I see so much judgment centered around improv on and off stage all of the time.

kaci_beeler wrote:

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:

kaci_beeler wrote: That's why you always get into every improv festival you apply to! And that's also why nobody ever claims to be "the best" in their city or of their style, or the very inventor of any artform, because that would imply a judgment somewhere.

*sigh* It was a nice thought.

You really didn't know what she meant? Really? C'mon...Really?
That's nonsense.

Mostly it's just funny to me, since I see so much judgment centered around improv on and off stage all of the time.

Offstage? Funny, hilarious, etc., whatever, I don't care. There should never be any judgment onstage by your teammates or yourself while doing improv. It's the death of a piece. As for judgment offstage, that's not improv, is it? That's not judgment IN improv, it's judgment of a product.

In the end, fuck it. If you commit and the audience likes it? Great. You've got friends. And if they don't? As long as you committed and believe fully in your piece, then who cares?

It is a nice thought that I believe can totally be true.

kaci_beeler wrote:

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:

kaci_beeler wrote: That's why you always get into every improv festival you apply to! And that's also why nobody ever claims to be "the best" in their city or of their style, or the very inventor of any artform, because that would imply a judgment somewhere.

*sigh* It was a nice thought.

You really didn't know what she meant? Really? C'mon...Really?
That's nonsense.

Mostly it's just funny to me, since I see so much judgment centered around improv on and off stage all of the time.

I guess I didn't follow your logic. it sounds like you're complaining about a separate issue...which is totally fine, but it sounds like you misinterpreted her. Maybe you weren't challenging her statement, and I'm reading what you wrote wrong, but I don't really see how it applies directly to what steph said, or how the fact that judgment exists and you don't like it makes her statement any less true.