Austin Improv

HT: A lot of fuss seems to be made about shortform vs. longform. Is the difference significant to you, and if so, why?

KG: I can’t stand folks who take sides in the shortform vs. longform debate. It’s like saying films suck but photography is amazing, or vice versa. The forms are so connected that I can’t understand how someone can see the artistry in one and not the other.

With a few exceptions, I’d say for the most part people who say short form sucks – aren’t funny. And people who say long form sucks – can’t improvise. My favorite improvisers, the ones I look up to the most, they can do both and do both well.

I honestly think it’s the same thing, just done differently, and the haters on either side are just coming from a place of wanting to disguise the fact that they’re having trouble keeping up. If a visual artist told me that he thought oil paintings were the best thing ever and that graffiti stencils were bullshit… I’d think he was a pretentious asshole. Same policy applies to improv.

the_reverend wrote:i agree completely, but still don't like short form. i'm complicated like that.

Jeff wrote:

the_reverend wrote:i agree completely, but still don't like short form. i'm complicated like that.

Same here, sort of. I don't much like short form, but I agree with the gist of what he's saying. I'm not fond of word choices like, "I can't stand folks who..." unless it's followed by something really hardcore like "... campaign to take away people's rights and freedom."

I hope that people gather from his words that there's a difference between having preferences, or likes and dislikes, and claiming or believing that something sucks. I don't think short form improv sucks, I think it's a perfectly valid art form. I just don't generally enjoy watching it or performing it. Generally. There are exceptions. Like Jordan said, I'm complicated like that.