Why, with the resources at their disposal, does the largest non-profit theatre in the midwest have a blogspot blog, instead of one that is actually fully integrated with their website?

The post you link to would have been a fantastic opportunity to engage online in a meaningful and continuing dialogue. Instead Steve takes a defensive posture and essentially regurgitates a press release, then directs people to the talk backs. Which is great, however it’s a huge missed opportunity to not continue it online.

Much of the content on the rest of the blog is essentially re-purposed pr.

So in a way, it is an online version of if I was to meet up with you and Marni and grab a cocktail. Then talk about myself to two hours And then if you start to say something, excuse myself to go to the can. Then start yapping again as soon as I return.

But then if y’all come over to my house we can have a great discussion.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m singling out the Goodman, they are far from the only institution like that.

See I dont think we’ll agree on this, but I think Gman gets the essential “cover” it needs since it is a Wooster Group show. However, it is gutsy to leave those blog responses up. I have to give Gman credit for that.

I would say it would be more than useful to record the talkbacks, and that without a recording of them, they are nice rarities to the minority in attendnence but ulitmately a tree falling in a forest where most can not hear it to the community at large.

If these talkbacks are so essential, so progressive, so moving (I dont doubt that they are) They need to have a life beyond the evening itself in order to evolve (my new word today) their relevence to a chicago community at large.

http://goodman-theatre.blogspot.com/2009/01/emperor-jones.html

http://www.goodmantheatre.org/news/eventsoneill.aspx#Other

Some of GMan’s talkbacks have been recorded and then rebroadcast on one of the WBEZ platforms, though I don’t recall there being any specific recording of that talkback.

It is relevant that EJ was Wooster Group, except that the talkback was pretty much orchestrated by Goodman and the Goodman does this (to great effect with the Student Subscription series, some of my favorite performances) with all of its self-produced work as well.

I do agree with your general thrust here, Bob – It’d be really useful if all these talkbacks were captured and made somehow available to prospective patrons so that the discussion could be broader and a greater audience net in itself. Ultimately, when the discussion is broad, continuous, and in depth, there’s less chance of having the audience shut down when they are turned off by a particular choice… that structure gives them the chance to reengage.

Is it relevant that EJ was an invited company rather than a subscription show? Would Goodman itself ever produce a piece on its season approximating the EJ?

Perhaps if there were a way to show us after the fact about the EJ talks rather than wishing we all could have been there, the arguement that big houses are ready and willing to deal (or manage) such provocation would be evolve easier. Something like a transcript or a youtube video.

Be careful, because I we need to continuously test our theories against what’s happening, day to day.

When people leave the sanctuary of the multi-million dollar complex the often will have very different things to say. As far as online media goes, Steppenwolf and The Goodman and Lookingglass etc, have failed almost every time they don’t control the conversation. And letting go of the conversation, to my mind, is step one of conversion.

They are used to the funnel method of marketing, and have adopted online tools to try and expand the funnel. But that’s not really how online media works most effectively.

probably a blog post in itself. . . but the problem with shutting down the controversy is that is when you can see the organization for what it is, and that is when conversion is truly possible if the org. is authentic.

That first talkback for EJ (and I’ve heard, the subsequent O’Neill talkbacks) were just incredible at the level of public discourse that the work itself was able to generate, and the amount the Goodman artistic staff (notably Education Director Willa Taylor) was able to shape the conversation towards – quite simply – collective revelation. And that included people being so mad at the play they wanted to scream, and people so mad at the interpretation they wanted to scream, and people who wanted to be mad so much that they had a kind of ecstatic change and actually reformed their initial perspective while watching the show. Amazing to hear that conversation take place.

Frankly, I don’t think the large institutions have the biggest problem with engaging their community, because they’re able to assemble more of the community. They’ve certainly failed to spark dialogue from time to time – some institutions more than others – but I think their central problem is having the large numbers of people that attend conversations like this feel like they’re participants in the dialogue (which often are moderated and limited in time). But the dialogue is certainly *happening*. I also see this as a clearly changing trend right now – I’ve seen poorly attended AND poory structured talkbacks before, but especially around the O’Neill fest, I felt the ground move in the past year – also at Steppenwolf, also at the Court. Also at some other venues.

I’d question the assumptions that underlie your final two questions, Tony – and I appreciate your questioning my sidelining the Steppenwolf incident. You’re right, the way controversy is handled and managed IS central to the questions presented by a transparent organization.

The problem with that is that for a long time there have been two different ways to communicate, internally and externally. There are still “experts” that say an organization cannot communicate to folks outside the institution in the same way as they do internally.

That’s not transparency and it’s not authentic. It also doesn’t work anymore. So lack of conversion is brought on through lack of authentic conversation.

Now is there less at the large institutions because they’re scared of really engaging their community in a dialogue with a level playing field? (ie not talking down to people outside the organization as if mistakes are never made) Or is it because enough folks still go that they don’t feel the need to?

Ouch… I’m a little uncomfortable with the brush you use to paint me here. It feels a bit chiding and glib to me. But, if that is your impression of my relationship to the press I am probably not going to be able to change it.

I agree that the press is an excellent way in which to push work forward (if the press finds you to be in fashion).

It is not out of hostility towards potentially naysaying critics (I actually have had the good fortune to get more positive press than not…and always welcome it as anyone should) that I think the future of arts information distribution is not the traditonal press or even that press’ presence online.

However, I am truculant about the relationship of the arts in this country to not arts criticism so much as entertainment journalism.

It is more about how arts criticism as we have known it in pre-blog days is going by the wayside. That even as our advocates among the critical celebrity speak loudly in our favor, their shareholders care less and less and coverage just slowly erodes away.

I see a day sooner than we think when (gulp) theatre coverage of anything less than a 100 seat house goes away from major publications. We’ll see this in less than a decade. Papers like the Reader will end up looking more like the Sun Times and anyone smaller than a midsize company will most likely not be considered for coverage at all. This happens…I dont attribute any sort of malice to it, but I think it happens.

All arts coverage will end up online very soon. And it is this that is both frightening to some and exciting to others. We will see a day when a show like RBP’s will be covered only by bloggers and non-professional enthusiast becuase someone somewhere after briefing a committee of shareholders will deem it is just not the cut of cloth people are wearing that month. Again not malice, just the way of the world.

We have the good fortune to have Jones review a show like Cardiff even though it plays for only a week. But those are the exceptions. Wonderful exceptions fantastically guided by a Goodman curation in conunction with a critic’s decision to cover it, but I dont know, is this what we perceive to be the norm?

I think the future conversion of social media (I’ll say it) to non virtual energy in support of a scene, a company, a theatrical endeavor is essential not only to rising stars in the soon to be mid-size theater level but to everyone out there who is striving to create anything.

The incubator of Chicago theater happens mostly in small houses and short runs. I believe that. I also believe that the critics/press are now painted into a corner due to economics that means they are forced to pass on most of this type of theatre.

p.s. Just because I am the Devilvet doesn’t mean I am not Bob as well. Anybody with google and five minutes can discern that. When I sign as devilvet, I am still transparent.

I feel like I’m pushing this topic off the course you’re setting so I’ll stop now. I just wanted one more rebuttal before I went back to my blog.