Improv sucks(?)
Here’s a link to an article (rant?) by comedian David Sparks. It’s interesting to read his “Comedian’s Stance on Improv” because the stand-up/improvisor rivalry strangely does exist in many circles. Although I am an improvisor I won’t completely discount his opinion because even Keith Johnstone says that improv is stupid, although Keith still teaches his own brand of improv and directs occasionally at the Loose Moose Theatre in Calgary. There are a lot of improv styles out there, just like there are many “Comedic Stylings” in stand up, and I think that most people will find at least one troupe that they like. Maybe…
10 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
contact [at] withoutannette.net
By vinny, May 9, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Another opinion on how Improv Sucks.
By christopher hearns, May 9, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Hey,
any chance you guys will comment on these criticisms of improv? I’m thinking here mostly of the article Vinny linked to but the other two as well.
By Mirz, May 10, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
I only heard that stand-up sucks.
By thegirl, May 10, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
Oh yeah? Well you’ll just have to come see one of our shows, pooh pooh heads.
Seriously though, these articles speak to my underlying fear that improv is self-indulgent and obnoxious. I’m always cognizant of this tendency on stage and I’m grateful to be in a troupe that values creativity and play over less dignified forms of improv.
I guess this isn’t a good time to commend Nick and Bryan’s use of masturbation in our last game of Puppets.
By hbc, May 11, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
Improv is only as self-indulgent, or obnoxious, or crappy as you choose to make it as a group. Conversely, it rocks as hard as you choose to rock it as a group. The same could apply to Improv, or Stand-up, or Music, or TV, or Videogames.
If improv only feeds itself with regurgitated cliches, you get confinement and stagnation. It’s like living in a world where every band was a beatles cover band, then music would equal beatles songs. It ends up having the same nutritional value as being an autocannibal, or someone who drinks their own urine. You get pre-packaged, recycled bullshit.
The baggage attached to the word improv ends up dragging it down both from a marketing perspective, and from a performance perspective. And the worse part is that these are prejudices that improvisors have created and reinforced themselves. Not even so much, “Improv sucks,” as much as, “Improv is ____ (some preconceived notion by fans)” where pandering to improv fans’ expectations actually ends up crippling the work more than detractors. Sure, sometimes you can put “improvised theatre” or “extemporaneous comedy” or your favourite adjective-noun combination on the poster, but if the show starts like “an improv show!!!” then you’re immediately setting up the same expectations you tried to avoid. I’ve even heard audience members say, “that’s not how you play that game…” I’m assuming because it didn’t adhere to WLiiA dogma.
The specific issue I see, is that Improv is often too focused on selling the process as part of the product. It can be a particular advantage to Improv, but it has become the biggest crutch. People want to see a good product, and the artists should be working on a good process to bring about this good product. But relying on an audience’s enjoyment of the process (We’re making this shit up, folks! Let’s get your input!) has made people lazy at coming out with an interesting product. Okay, you painted that picture with your nose… cool… I’m impressed for a second, but do I like the painting? That’s the lasting question.
The artist is in charge of cultivating and managing the expectations of their art. Improv must die so that Improv can grow. Does Improv suck? Who cares? … Do you suck? Now there’s the right question.
Sorry for two rants in a row. This actually has more to do with local conversations that just happen to be at least tangentially connected with your blog postings. From what I can see, WA continues to not suck. IMPROV IS DEAD! LONG LIVE IMPROV!
By hbc, May 11, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
…oh, and that Adam Felber article said it better and earlier than I did. Tee hee.
By Chris Dye, May 11, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
“Okay, you painted that picture with your nose… cool… I’m impressed for a second, but do I like the painting? That’s the lasting question.”
Is this some sort of anti-elephant remark?
By hbc, May 12, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Only elephants who rest on their laurels.
http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php
By vinnyfrancois, May 12, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Christopher Hearns wrote:
any chance you guys will comment on these criticisms of improv? I’m thinking here mostly of the article Vinny linked to but the other two as well.
I’m still thinking about it. If I find I have something to say, I’ll try to post it here. It is percolating, though…
By Marcel, May 13, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
I generally find that the term ‘improv sucks’ is usually uttered when people have (a) seen a sucky improv show. Which happens. or (b) performed in a sucky improv show. Which also happens.
But really – hbc has a lot of really good points that I pretty much agree with.
As to the original author of the ‘improv sucks’ article. Well. Maybe improv sucks when you’re doing it. Which happens. Do something you’re good at and then neither you nor the artform will suck.