i may have said this before

What I commented on Freeman's blog.

I think Grotowsky had it right when he said (and I paraphrase here) 'Theatre is the relationship between the actor and the audience.' Before that it is words on a page, an empty set...etc. Do I think about the audience when performing? - It would do nothing for my performance to lose concentration like that. Does it happen - hell yes. (I once performed for our current first lady and I had no idea she was there until places when I passed by her secret service guys and a cast mate told me what was up. I definitely thought about my audience in that moment.)

But when it comes to the bigger picture of who we are performing for, I would say this: I detest theatre that drapes itself in an insiders only atmosphere. I don't want to have to be 'in the club' in order to appreciate something on stage. I am not advocating pandering or dumbing down to the masses. I am simply saying that to only perform for one person is done so at the exclusion of everyone else. Television is a solitary entertainment, not theatre. When something is funny on stage, the audience feels more at liberty to laugh if others are laughing. A collective reaction is a good thing, not a sellout.

As for a generation of new audience - I have waxed poetic on this one many times. I believe in supporting and working with educators and communities. I think the only way to grow audience in the mass media world (that has no cock fighting or bear baiting to lure people to the stage) is to do our best to educate them and include them. Us theatre folk tend to be a tad (ahem) elitist. Why should we expect audiences to flock to us when we seem so disdainful of them. If they don't 'get' something on stage it is not the mark of mediocrity, it is the mark of ignorance. Instead of putting our energy into the study of the audience it should be directed toward growing crops of theatre goers, who are excited to be challenged by what they see.