One Reason Why I Love Julie Taymor

When you watch a piece of theatre, what do you notice? Most directors would agree that the goal of watching a good production should be the same as watching a movie that captures your emotions or a novel that proves impossible to be put down. Good theatre, I'm talking a production with stellar actors, sets, lighting, props, and costumes (not to mention a good script to begin with) draws in its audience. Audiences watching a solid theatre production should not be able to remember that they are at the theatre. Dramatists suggest that theatrical productions encompass a third space seperate the from both the "real world" and the world of the theatre or building staging the production. Audiences are encouraged to immerse themselves completely in a piece. If a production is too distracting in any form, audiences run the risk of losing their focus and therefore drawing away from the third world of the action onstage. This transition out of a so-called out of body experience is called metatheatre--literally meaning outside the theatre.

Metatheatre is risky. Losing focus for even a few seconds could detract an audience member from returning to the action on stage. Director, creator, costume designer, and (I would argue) philosopher Julie Taymor shows no fear when it comes to the audience having a metatheatrical experience. On the contrary, Taymor suggests that what I call the duality of reality and imagination is what makes theatre magical. As part of her commentary on her production of The Lion King in 1998, Taymor explains

“I wanted viewers to be released from their memories of the film right from the start, to take a leap of faith and imagination. The Pride Rock design also helped drive the overall style of the production. Stage mechanics would be visible. The audience, given a hint or suggestion of an idea would be ready to fill in the lines, to take it in the rest of the way. They would be participants in the entire event. Magic can be generated by blatantly showing how theatre is created rather than hiding it” (Blumenthall, 2007, 225).

She also speaks about her costume choices in relation to this concept of duality in the following YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_haDWFcBM

Taymor epitomizes play in all that she does. Like inqiry based learning or open ended curriculum, Taymor cannot fully script her work. It is impossible. By involving her audiences on such a deep level, she is inviting them to particpate, give feedback, and join her on her journey. This is how I view education. Taymor would agree that teachers are essential just as much as her role as director or designer. But a good director provides a clear enough vision for her actors to run with the idea and develop their own characters. Similary, good teachers use curriculum as a guideline to educate students through the best and most creative mediums available. As David Booth reminds us, the medium and the message can be one in the same if we choose an appropriate medium to deliver a wise message. We should all teach like Taymor, free to take risks while involving our students along with us in our journey together.

"Rom Coms" and "Captian America"

A response to the article by Clarrington, Victoria, 'I'm in a bad mood. Let's go shopping!' Interactive dolls, consumer culture and a ‘glocalized’ model of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 83-98. University of Queensland, Australia, 2003.

After a week of reading and discussing gender stereotypes, I lived my own this Saturday night. My husband informed me Friday that he was going to see the movie "Captain America" with his best guy friend Saturday night. Although the movie seemed mildly interesting, I had my eye on my own romantic comedy. After wrangling my four gal pals together, we saw our own chick flick "Friends with Benefits". Post movie, my best friend and I met up with my husband at a pub. "How did you like the movie?" I asked my husband innocently. "Two words", he said, "kick ass. You'd love the romance in it."

Classic eh? But stereotypes aside, I had a fabulous evening. And I guess, after reading Clarrinton's article, I'm left to ask myself, when does an evening of "rom coms" and action flicks turn into Diva Starz and Tonka trucks in pink and blue packaging? In other words, what turns stereotypical into just plain scary?

Earlier that Saturday over dinner at my girlfriend's house, I said, in passing, that I thought I was a girly girl. My friend raised her brows and questioned my self imposed label. "But you don't obsess about make up and hair and clothes" she correctly assessed. "The I guess I'm not" I self corrected. Apparently flawed, to me I was a girly girl because I usually gravitate to hanging out with girls, I like shopping (though budget friendly shopping), and getting (budget friendly) pampered. I guess watching Sex and the City mislead me to believe I was Carrie Bradshaw without the casual sex and consistent failed romances. Is Carrie Bradshaw a girly girl?

Back to Clarrington, I was hooked by the mere title of her article. On one hand, as a former shoe sales associate who worked on commission, I thrive on retail therapy. It's a huge part of my company's marketing ploy. Come into the store, dish your problems, buy more than one pair of shoes (because buying one pair does not impress the managers). Voila! Problems solved. Paradoxically, what would someone like Gail Vaz-Oxlade, host of 'Til Debt Do Us Part say to this same target audience? Save your money! Budget wisely! We girly/non-girly girls are being fed mixed messages.

Maybe I'm a business woman at heart. Clarrington in her article focuses on the dolls physical features, their anime quality, their positioning on the shelves, and their figures of speech. Though I sympathise with Clarrington's frustrations, I am more of a voyeur. In my mind, this is a lost battle. I maintain the claim that in order to bring back free play, manufactures need to veer away from dolls altogether and bring back toys that set the stage for children to be the doll-like actors in their play world. Bring back fake Fisher Price food, swing sets and school houses. By providing the setting, children will be forced to bring their imagination in order to bring the bare stage to life. The perfect marriage between Bradshaw and Vaz-Oxlade.

Does Art = Creativity?

A response to the article by Moga et al, Does Studying the Arts Engender Creative Thinking? Evidence for Near but Not Far Transfer. Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 34, No 3/4, Special Issue: The Arts and Academic Achievement: What the Evidence Shows (Autumn-Winter, 2000), University of Illinois Press, pp.91-104.

Do the arts naturally and solely foster creativity? Moga et al, through psychologist David Perkins, explore this question through an introductory quote:

"The arts are excellent vehicles for fostering thinking because they provide a sensory anchor (one can focus on a physical object as one thinks), they are instantly accessible (one can check one's argument at any point by looking back at the work), they engage us and sustain our attention, and they encourage rich connections" (91).

Conversely, the authors seem to challenge Perkins and ask, "What evidence do we have that learning in the arts leads to creative thinking skills?" (ibid). The rest of the article describes a set of hypotheses and research experiments that prove inconclusive to 'proving; this correlation. But after reading the article, I wonder how a subject matter can be innately more creative than another? If this was to be proven true, that the arts does indeed foster a greater sense of creativity than other subjects, wouldn't it be a terrible disadvantage to those students who cannot fit the arts into their timetable? Would the arts then turn into a core subject...that is if the world values creativity. Rather, can't this not be a matter of nature versus nurture. Does a subject seep with creativity or is it infused by a creative teacher? 

It is no secret that I am a fan of the power of teachers. I believe that there are good teachers and bad teachers and that teachers have the power to change lives. Whether this is cliche or not I believe it. I wouldn't be a teacher if I didn't. And beacause I believe in the power of teachers, I work hard to be a damn good one. To me, a good teacher is a creative teacher. And though teaching through the arts comes natural to me, I try to share my creative angle in all subjects. I realize that not all students are like me and gravitate to the arts over maths or sciences. If I am passionate about teaching, I need to be passionate about teaching all subjects to engage all students. This means teaching creatively not just through art. It is the teacher that is creative, not the subject.

What's the difference between dance and drama?

A response to Kathryn Vaughn and Ellen Winner's article Sat Scores of Studetns Who Study the Arts: What We Can and Cannot Conclude about the Association. Journal of Aesthetic Educaiton, Vol. 34, Nos. 3-4, Fall/Winter 2000, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 2000.

It's been a few days since I first read the article by Vaughn and Winner and I'm still at a loss. At first glance, I applauded the research conducted that proved the value of arts education. According to their research, students who study the arts in high school have higher SAT scores than those who do not study the arts" (77). As a drama major in high school and university, reading that statement I feel as though the public has cheered for the underdog and has finally won! Science, math, puh! Who needs it? But the arts! Wow.

Ok...so my reaction wasn't that extreme. But my smiles were soon stunted with a flip of a page. It turns out that all art forms are not created equal. In the many charts and graphs and tables, Vaughn and Winner retell how students that are enrolled in drama and music slightly outperform those in visual arts and even more so than those students enrolled in dance.

How can that be? What is so different about drama than dance? I scowered the article. There must be a reason. But Vaughn and Winner simply shared the process of the study without answering the all important "why". That is now left for me to explore and, ultimately, attempt to answer.

To try and solve this new mystery that has been gnawing and plaguing me for these past few days I turn to the current Ministry of Ontario Secondary Arts Curriculum. Revised in 2010 I focused on the Grade 11 and 12 curricula since those students would most likely be the ones to take the SAT. Understanding that the SAT is an American test and I am looking at a Canadian document, I chose to sift through the Ontario curriculum since it is most familiar to me as both a student and a teacher. Additionally, not all curricula is standardised or unified in each American state.

Before even looking at the document, my hypothesis as to why these results are so is linked to the difference in verbal and kinaesthetic emphasis. Drama, especially acting (the strand where students performed the best) requires high verbal skill. Actors are often called upon to heavily research text, apply current events or narrative, and memorize many pages of material in a short amount of time. To me, this process is identical to that of studying for the verbal component of the SAT. Students must cram a lot of material in a rather brief amount of time. They must use their skills of memory recall, language acquisition and narrative to achieve a high score. On the contrary, dance is a different form of literacy. As I adhere to in my previous blog posts, I am quite a fan of dance and believe that dance can tell as much of a story as any actor. I would label dancers as actors that use their body as the primary vehicle to tell just as important a story. However, choreographers do not often instruct their dancers to memorize text. Though they may be as likely to research background content to apply narrative to movement, they are not as likely to apply this research through a more common type of print literacy in demand for a test like the SAT.

Now, looking at the curriculum documents, I started by comparing the overall expectations of both the drama and dance curricula. As stated, the three overall expectations in the Grade 11 and 12 drama curriculum are: 1) Creating and Presenting; 2) Reflecting, Responding, and Analyzing; and 3) Foundations (2010, 81). To my surprise, the overall dance expectations are exactly the same as the ones for drama (2010, 51). As I dig deeper into the specifics however, I do find more of a verbal focus connected to the drama curriculum than that of the dance, thereby backing up my rough hypothesis. Specific strands of conversation, text analysis, role play and verbal enhancement string through each separate expectations. The word "movement" is smattered all over the dance curriculum connected to any reference to text analysis.

For me, my this is just the beginning. Vaughn and Winner sparked my interest to research this topic further. Until now I never considered a hierarchy of the arts. Creativity to me is simply that, creative. And I believe that everyone can be creative no matter the field, or subject, or curriculum strand. I understand that creativity must be assessed, but are some subjects truly that formatted to be better evaluated than others?

Dance, Literacy and Meaning Making

A response to Eisner, E (2003). The arts and the creation of mind. Language Arts, 80(5), 340-344

Over the past month, I've been watching both the American and Canadian versions of So You Think You Can Dance, a television show where dancers compete in many different genres to be the top dancer and win both a car and a dance contract worth over $100 000. Dancers immerse themselves and occasionally even injure themselves as they sweat and share their passion and love of movement with thousands of viewers each week. Audience members without a dance background may appreciate the show differently than those who have been dancing since the age of three like myself. Nevertheless when viewing one of those extraordinary routines, those routines that genuinely tell a story or evoke an emotion so raw that even the dancers themselves tear up or laugh or scream once they finish performing, I would argue that anyone watching, regardless of experience, could experience the same sense of empathy and feeling. This, Eisner would argue, is the importance of meaning making.

In discussing language, Eisner defines language as a term that "can be conceptualized to refer to the use of any form of representation in which meaning is conveyed or construed" (1994). David Booth similarly preaches that there are many different kinds of literacy. One is not merely literate or not literate, one is literate in certain areas. I may be more dance literate than my husband because I have taken more dance lessons from an earlier age. To Eisner, the qualitative nature of art is not difficult to express once it takes a concrete form of meaning making. This he calls "aesthetic" (2003, 10). Dance allows those students who may be more kinaesthetic to use a different type of language to express themselves creatively just as the choreographers on the show draw from within their own experiences to share to the world their own imagination and aesthetic.

Eisner ends his article with a hope that the arts does not have to remain its own entity. He longs for cross-curricular education where math classes use music and science classes infuse drama to engage more students. To me, this is not only logical, it is imperative. Shows like So You Think You Can Dance prove that any message can be conveyed through art. Why can't this be true with teaching multiplication tables or the periodic table of elements? Thankfully, I do not worry to much. Perhaps I have more faith in our system than Eisner because I have seen so many wonderful teachers infusing curriculum already. Maybe we should make a reality show so these teachers can shine too! Wouldn't you love a brand new car and $100 000??

Here is a clip from one of the episodes from the show. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C18rL6kGPM

My Invisible Kids

A response to: Cameron. L (2006.) Play held hostage by the 'bully' excellence. Touchstone 36th Annual Conference Proceedings: Council of Drama and Dance in Education, 6-10

I really enjoyed Cameron's article and the passion she clearly exudes as she questions the selection and appeal of toys from the new millennia. Though there are so many points to extract and dissect from Cameron's piece, I am choosing to focus on Cameron's question posed in Part Two of her article: "Are there toys that might elicit storying? Problem solving?...Fantasy?" (8).

Cameron firsts asks this question in response to the lack of toys that would lead to the type of play "might facilitate imagination" (ibid). In her article she speaks of toys that either gravitate toward a specific gender or expectation or even a pre-described way to play with that toy. Cameron seems to be yearning for play with toys that are, by lack of a better term, neutral. Toys that can be manipulated in no one way. Toys without pages of instructions. Toys that mustn’t only be played with by girls or by boys. Toys that conjure creativity, drama, and risk.

Reflecting on the toys I played with when I was young, I chose a different path than my friends. In fact, my mother- a Barbie collector- saved all her Barbie's for me (her first child) to play with and I refused them all. I hated that Barbie's couldn't move. They could not come to life the way I wanted. And even though I loved playing with fake food and fake household items, I would spend my time setting up grocery stores and model homes only to welcome my true playmates, my invisible kids. My role with the invisible kids grew as I grew. First my invisible kids were simply my friends. When my mom had my sister when I was nearly four, I grew to more of a role model for my invisible kids now that I had a sister to take care of as well. The more I took dance lessons the more I became the invisible kid's dance teacher. In primary school, I hired an invisible nurse for my invisible orphanage so my invisible kids would be cared for while I was in school and while I slept. I do not really remember when I stopped playing with my invisible kids. I only hope they never felt abandoned.

For me, toys just didn't cut it. Perhaps it is my love of control and teaching at an early age. Or perhaps not. Whatever the reason toys were only props in my imaginary world. I can understand Cameron's frustrations with toys today because I was never satisfied with toys from twenty years ago...and reading the article I can only assume the restrictions on toys are more numerous and larger in scope than they were when I was a child. To Cameron, I invite her to join my invisible world. It's probably a lot more fun.