“Music is the universal language.” This is a common phrase – and while it is very true, I feel like it can also be extended to other art forms as well – dance, visual, theater (if translated). Or, maybe this is said just as commonly about other art forms and I tend to hear “music” from the people I talk to because of the music bubble I am in. Either way, one of the many interesting things about the arts is that they can be so specific to a culture, yet they are so universal. For example, every culture has its own distinct style of music, however people can listen to and appreciate music from many different cultures. Specific to music, 10 different musicians that speak 10 different languages can sit and play music together. An audience that speaks 50 different languages can enjoy and understand the same performance.
So, on to similarities and differences between exchange programs and traditional touring. Beginning with similarities, one of the most broad items that comes to mind is that both exchange programs and touring are intended to share your art with those that are away from your home base. Whether that is the home base of a touring performing ensemble, or the home base of an individual who is going abroad for an exchange program, the audience is new to the organization. Another similarity is that in both cases, both sides of the exchange/tour (artist and audience) will learn something about the culture, and will be exposed to another culture. That learning may not be intentional or even fully realized by the learner as it can just be simple, organic learning. But, whether they want to, or know it, they will walk away from the experience different than when they started.
Yet, this same point (that both sides of the exchange experience another culture whether they want to or not) is also a key difference between these two kinds of endeavors. An arts partnership has intentional learning and cultural exchange. In fact, this is the base of their purpose. Another difference is that an arts partnership has more of an implication for a sustained impact and relationship, whereas a tour’s purpose might end after the show is over. They perform, and that’s it – see you next time. An arts partnership is more designed to make sure those involved walk away with something they can really use in other parts of their lives, whether it be professional or just personal. Again, not that a tour might not provide this, but it is not so intentional.
I think international partnerships are an interesting direction in the arts. I think they do have the ability to make a very strong impact on all involved, and can really establish strong relationships and respect among artists and cultures.
I think you make some good distinctions between partnerships and touring. To me, touring feels more like propaganda, whereas if you say it's a "partnership" I feel more positively about it. I do think this sharing of cultures is an important endeavor though.
It's sort of like the Conflict Kitchen (which is in itself, a work of art) - partnerships can serve for really important dialogues cross-culturally. I think as we move towards becoming a country with a minority majority, these partnerships will become even more relevant.
Hi Rebecca, your post was really thought-provoking for me on a couple of different levels. First, I agree with your opinion regarding international partnerships. I think you made an astute observation when you talked about how about arts partnerships intentionally enhancing both audiences' and performers' understanding of a piece of art from another culture. That was definitely an aspect of the touring-exchange-partnership model that I admire.
However, I would slightly disagree with your assertion that theatre (my background) can be a universal language - at least sometimes. I think this is because even though international theatre audiences can jump at any opportunity to see a touring company from another country, they still might miss some important cultural references that are ingrained in the work itself. Dramaturgs exists to help bridge that cultural gap by doing research that informs audiences about various underlying cultural influences that have made the work so popular where it originated. However, I rarely see dramaturgs used for international tours or partnerships (which is a missed opportunity, in my opinion). Not only would they be useful with answering questions from actors, but they could at least help market the specific production and make it seem less "foreign" to audiences.
Hi Mike, I think of some Chinese traditional operas, like Peking Opera when you argued that theater is not a universal language. There are so many regional cultural references ingrained in the Peking Opera itself that even we Chinese from other regions in China find it hard to understand and appreciate. One of the biggest barriers is the archaic language used in Peking Opera. During the second half of the 20th century, Peking opera witnessed a steady decline in audience numbers, especially the young audience. Ironically, Peking opera has enjoyed a great success and reputation since it's spread to other countries, including the United States and Japan. Of course, I find it delightful, the reason why I also called it ironic is that I'm surprised that people from other countries really found a way to appreciate this unique and exotic form of opera. That said, the point I'm trying to make here is that International cultural exchange programs are good efforts to preserve and revitalize some art forms in danger of vanishing. This is another difference between cultural exchange and standard touring. After all, most touring shows decide to start touring if they receive good response in birth city and have a good reason to believe that there's an audience base in touring cities. However, most of the time, the new art forms introduced from other countries face a bigger challenge to develop new audience. They'll absolutely gain more support and popularity back home if they nail it internationally.
Mike, I was surprised that you haven't seen dramaturgs used in international exchange programs. That has always been the 'must turn to' moment for dramaturgs in the world I circulate (in other words -- you might not have a dramaturg fulltime, but for understanding different cultures or translating into the same, they become the 'go to'). Maybe it was a DC thing. Although I did have a similar experience in Atlanta . . .
Indeed, touring for any purpose " They'll absolutely gain more support and popularity back home if they nail it internationally. " Yingjie I do think that people who attend the unknown are a unusual class of folk (likely a low cross over with the die-hard Shakespeare or Neil Simon fan). It takes an experimental heart to walk into something like Noh or Bunraku or Peking Opera. An interesting thing to discuss when we get to the arts marketing side of things (while selling a new shoe is one thing, selling something highly experimental takes a whole different marketing finesse).
I was also surprised by the idea of theatre as a universal language. While translation is certainly an option, there is so much of theatre (an likely other art forms as well) that draws on specific cultural references, norms and context that it is unlikely that an international audience will experience/understand it in the same way that a domestic audience will (whatever nationality that domestic audience may be). That said, I think one of the most fascinating things about international touring, adaptation, and other forms of artistic sharing is discovering and discussing the differences in the ways audiences perceive and appreciate the art. I agree with Mike that this work requires careful and thorough dramaturgy, but I am excited about the many different ways in which many different cultures can understand a work. I would argue that this transcends the language-based nature of theatre and applies to dance and music as well. Yes, musicians from varying backgrounds can play together, but will the music mean the same thing to each musician if they have different experiences, different references and different cultural applications of music?
So, maybe music is actually more "universal" (whatever that means) than some other art forms (maybe my music bubble was right?).
But, that said, Kate makes an interesting point about what the music means to musicians - even if they can sit down together to play a piece, starting and ending at the same time and playing the correct notes. I would strongly agree that the music will NOT mean the same thing to each musician if they come from different backgrounds. That is one of the reasons it is always interesting to hear a French quartet interpret Ravel, or a Russian quartet play Shostakovich.
You could even say that a musician will have a different understanding of the same piece of music every time they play it. I understand music much differently than I did just 5 years - imagine 30 years from now. My experiences over 30 years will change the meaning of a piece to me.
I guess that is one of the things I love about music though. Bringing, say, 4 musicians together to play a quartet, and everybody has a different background, and a different opinion about how certain things should be played. And you (respectfully) "argue" with each other, try to explain your opinions, and eventually the group reaches a conclusion about how it will be performed. And then, theoretically, by the time you perform the piece you are all "on the same page" about how it will be interpreted - how you will articulate the notes, how loud or soft you will play certain parts, and so on.
So, maybe that is where the term "universal" can sort of be applied again - musicians with totally different backgrounds, cultures, and understandings can "unite" their ideas together, and come to an understanding. There will be disagreements, but in order to put on a successful performance, they will have to merge their ideas together.
So, that point brings me back to (believe it or not) the original discussion: Something you can really get out of an international partnership, in certain scenarios, (that you would probably not get out of touring) is a 'unified expression of your disagreements'. All parties involved will have the experience of working together and overcoming their differences.
It is not just each culture learning about the other - it can be about integrating the new culture's ideas into yours, beyond the scope of your partnership work. And, it is not just about each party taking something from the other - it can be about coming up with some sort of hybrid art interpretation, which includes ideas from both sides.
To expound on this a bit further, I really think that individual interpretation is one of the beauties of all art forms. I would say that maybe 75% of your arts experience is what is presented to you. The other 25% is how you, personally, interpret it and react to it. That audience and participant subjectivity is what makes an art experience wonderful...it's a very personal thing.
That said, I think that, yeah, it might be difficult for an international audience to understand something (especially a theatrical piece) as it was "meant to be understood" and translation and cultural differences may inherently change the effect of the piece. But is that really a bad thing? I don't think that any art should necessarily be held to one, universal meaning and that anybody who gets something different out of it is wrong. As long as the work isn't totally botched and they get SOMETHING out of it.
I strongly agree with Marissa’s opinion that art shouldn’t have just one universal meaning. But especially in the classical music and opera field, I sometimes have the feeling that there is this one absolute interpretation of a piece that every audience member has to accept. I don’t know where this phenomenon comes from – maybe from the fact that the music world is so canonized. Therefore, thousands of people have heard the same pieces over hundreds of years and have built a universal interpretation. Subtitles in the opera have supported this additionally. However, after hearing an introduction for a concert or opera, I sometimes sit in the audience and try to find all the meanings in the music/play that the dramaturge has mentioned. And over this search I oftentimes miss to interpret what I see and hear from my own perspective and with regard to my own personal background and feelings.
Therefore, not understanding what the people on the stage are saying could be a real advantage for the audience’s interpretation of the piece. I made this experience last year when I visited a theatre play in Finland. I didn’t understood a word of the whole play, but because I didn’t had to concentrate on the words and their (pretended) interpretation, I was free to actually experience the play itself – the movements and expressions of the actors and the stage setting itself. Through that I created my own interpretation of the piece and had the time to reflect my feelings about it.
In my opinion this is one of the biggest advantages the audience can get out of international theatre. By not knowing the language and the common interpretation of the piece, the audience is free to build their own relationship to the art – without social pressure.
I very much agree with Christina. I think there is great opportunity in exchange by have audiences interpreting art at a different levels of understanding. With theatre, and I am sure with other art forms, there are many different interpretations of a piece from the start. The playwright has his/her own understanding of what they are trying to convey, the director has their own interpretation, each individual actors have their own meanings of the show, and the audiences members interpret this all together with their own life experiences. So an international audience might not understand what a particular directors vision is, but I am sure they can still walk away with something. Like Christina touched on, what an international audience can gain out of an exchange show could be very different had it originated in their own country, city, or town. That is some of the beauty of it....being able to use a different set of eyes.
I agree with the idea that an uneducated or interpreted immersion has value as well. It comes back to the multiple points of entry into a work (even for international musicians and the same piece). We all bring our own meanings to the experience unless we are told they are invalid or there is only one .....
I love the fact that theatre (and art, in general) can be meaningful in different ways to different people. Marissa - absolutely - the differing perspectives and experiences that alter participant/audience experiences are one of the things that make theatre wonderful. I was only questioning the utility of theatre as a form of cultural exchange (a common language) in that the ways in which one culture is portrayed by a piece can be completely misconstrued by another culture. This is not to say that the members of the receiving culture have not engaged in a valuable artistic experience, but that their impressions of the presenting culture may not be what the presenting culture had intended. This does not mean that theatre (art) is not a valuable way to bridge cultural divides, but that the process must be more thoroughly examined to ensure that the impression being made in some real way resembles the impression intended. It's not as simple as it may seem.
“Music is the universal language.” This is a common phrase – and while it is very true, I feel like it can also be extended to other art forms as well – dance, visual, theater (if translated). Or, maybe this is said just as commonly about other art forms and I tend to hear “music” from the people I talk to because of the music bubble I am in. Either way, one of the many interesting things about the arts is that they can be so specific to a culture, yet they are so universal. For example, every culture has its own distinct style of music, however people can listen to and appreciate music from many different cultures. Specific to music, 10 different musicians that speak 10 different languages can sit and play music together. An audience that speaks 50 different languages can enjoy and understand the same performance.
ReplyDeleteSo, on to similarities and differences between exchange programs and traditional touring. Beginning with similarities, one of the most broad items that comes to mind is that both exchange programs and touring are intended to share your art with those that are away from your home base. Whether that is the home base of a touring performing ensemble, or the home base of an individual who is going abroad for an exchange program, the audience is new to the organization. Another similarity is that in both cases, both sides of the exchange/tour (artist and audience) will learn something about the culture, and will be exposed to another culture. That learning may not be intentional or even fully realized by the learner as it can just be simple, organic learning. But, whether they want to, or know it, they will walk away from the experience different than when they started.
Yet, this same point (that both sides of the exchange experience another culture whether they want to or not) is also a key difference between these two kinds of endeavors. An arts partnership has intentional learning and cultural exchange. In fact, this is the base of their purpose. Another difference is that an arts partnership has more of an implication for a sustained impact and relationship, whereas a tour’s purpose might end after the show is over. They perform, and that’s it – see you next time. An arts partnership is more designed to make sure those involved walk away with something they can really use in other parts of their lives, whether it be professional or just personal. Again, not that a tour might not provide this, but it is not so intentional.
I think international partnerships are an interesting direction in the arts. I think they do have the ability to make a very strong impact on all involved, and can really establish strong relationships and respect among artists and cultures.
I think you make some good distinctions between partnerships and touring. To me, touring feels more like propaganda, whereas if you say it's a "partnership" I feel more positively about it. I do think this sharing of cultures is an important endeavor though.
DeleteIt's sort of like the Conflict Kitchen (which is in itself, a work of art) - partnerships can serve for really important dialogues cross-culturally. I think as we move towards becoming a country with a minority majority, these partnerships will become even more relevant.
And thoughtful nonprofit perf. Arts groups incorporate food as an element of the greater environment ..... It is an art :-!
DeleteHi Rebecca, your post was really thought-provoking for me on a couple of different levels. First, I agree with your opinion regarding international partnerships. I think you made an astute observation when you talked about how about arts partnerships intentionally enhancing both audiences' and performers' understanding of a piece of art from another culture. That was definitely an aspect of the touring-exchange-partnership model that I admire.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would slightly disagree with your assertion that theatre (my background) can be a universal language - at least sometimes. I think this is because even though international theatre audiences can jump at any opportunity to see a touring company from another country, they still might miss some important cultural references that are ingrained in the work itself. Dramaturgs exists to help bridge that cultural gap by doing research that informs audiences about various underlying cultural influences that have made the work so popular where it originated. However, I rarely see dramaturgs used for international tours or partnerships (which is a missed opportunity, in my opinion). Not only would they be useful with answering questions from actors, but they could at least help market the specific production and make it seem less "foreign" to audiences.
Hi Mike, I think of some Chinese traditional operas, like Peking Opera when you argued that theater is not a universal language. There are so many regional cultural references ingrained in the Peking Opera itself that even we Chinese from other regions in China find it hard to understand and appreciate. One of the biggest barriers is the archaic language used in Peking Opera. During the second half of the 20th century, Peking opera witnessed a steady decline in audience numbers, especially the young audience. Ironically, Peking opera has enjoyed a great success and reputation since it's spread to other countries, including the United States and Japan. Of course, I find it delightful, the reason why I also called it ironic is that I'm surprised that people from other countries really found a way to appreciate this unique and exotic form of opera.
DeleteThat said, the point I'm trying to make here is that International cultural exchange programs are good efforts to preserve and revitalize some art forms in danger of vanishing. This is another difference between cultural exchange and standard touring. After all, most touring shows decide to start touring if they receive good response in birth city and have a good reason to believe that there's an audience base in touring cities. However, most of the time, the new art forms introduced from other countries face a bigger challenge to develop new audience. They'll absolutely gain more support and popularity back home if they nail it internationally.
Mike,
DeleteI was surprised that you haven't seen dramaturgs used in international exchange programs. That has always been the 'must turn to' moment for dramaturgs in the world I circulate (in other words -- you might not have a dramaturg fulltime, but for understanding different cultures or translating into the same, they become the 'go to'). Maybe it was a DC thing. Although I did have a similar experience in Atlanta . . .
Indeed, touring for any purpose " They'll absolutely gain more support and popularity back home if they nail it internationally. "
DeleteYingjie
I do think that people who attend the unknown are a unusual class of folk (likely a low cross over with the die-hard Shakespeare or Neil Simon fan). It takes an experimental heart to walk into something like Noh or Bunraku or Peking Opera. An interesting thing to discuss when we get to the arts marketing side of things (while selling a new shoe is one thing, selling something highly experimental takes a whole different marketing finesse).
I was also surprised by the idea of theatre as a universal language. While translation is certainly an option, there is so much of theatre (an likely other art forms as well) that draws on specific cultural references, norms and context that it is unlikely that an international audience will experience/understand it in the same way that a domestic audience will (whatever nationality that domestic audience may be).
DeleteThat said, I think one of the most fascinating things about international touring, adaptation, and other forms of artistic sharing is discovering and discussing the differences in the ways audiences perceive and appreciate the art. I agree with Mike that this work requires careful and thorough dramaturgy, but I am excited about the many different ways in which many different cultures can understand a work.
I would argue that this transcends the language-based nature of theatre and applies to dance and music as well. Yes, musicians from varying backgrounds can play together, but will the music mean the same thing to each musician if they have different experiences, different references and different cultural applications of music?
So, maybe music is actually more "universal" (whatever that means) than some other art forms (maybe my music bubble was right?).
DeleteBut, that said, Kate makes an interesting point about what the music means to musicians - even if they can sit down together to play a piece, starting and ending at the same time and playing the correct notes. I would strongly agree that the music will NOT mean the same thing to each musician if they come from different backgrounds. That is one of the reasons it is always interesting to hear a French quartet interpret Ravel, or a Russian quartet play Shostakovich.
You could even say that a musician will have a different understanding of the same piece of music every time they play it. I understand music much differently than I did just 5 years - imagine 30 years from now. My experiences over 30 years will change the meaning of a piece to me.
I guess that is one of the things I love about music though. Bringing, say, 4 musicians together to play a quartet, and everybody has a different background, and a different opinion about how certain things should be played. And you (respectfully) "argue" with each other, try to explain your opinions, and eventually the group reaches a conclusion about how it will be performed. And then, theoretically, by the time you perform the piece you are all "on the same page" about how it will be interpreted - how you will articulate the notes, how loud or soft you will play certain parts, and so on.
So, maybe that is where the term "universal" can sort of be applied again - musicians with totally different backgrounds, cultures, and understandings can "unite" their ideas together, and come to an understanding. There will be disagreements, but in order to put on a successful performance, they will have to merge their ideas together.
So, that point brings me back to (believe it or not) the original discussion: Something you can really get out of an international partnership, in certain scenarios, (that you would probably not get out of touring) is a 'unified expression of your disagreements'. All parties involved will have the experience of working together and overcoming their differences.
It is not just each culture learning about the other - it can be about integrating the new culture's ideas into yours, beyond the scope of your partnership work. And, it is not just about each party taking something from the other - it can be about coming up with some sort of hybrid art interpretation, which includes ideas from both sides.
To expound on this a bit further, I really think that individual interpretation is one of the beauties of all art forms. I would say that maybe 75% of your arts experience is what is presented to you. The other 25% is how you, personally, interpret it and react to it. That audience and participant subjectivity is what makes an art experience wonderful...it's a very personal thing.
DeleteThat said, I think that, yeah, it might be difficult for an international audience to understand something (especially a theatrical piece) as it was "meant to be understood" and translation and cultural differences may inherently change the effect of the piece. But is that really a bad thing? I don't think that any art should necessarily be held to one, universal meaning and that anybody who gets something different out of it is wrong. As long as the work isn't totally botched and they get SOMETHING out of it.
I strongly agree with Marissa’s opinion that art shouldn’t have just one universal meaning. But especially in the classical music and opera field, I sometimes have the feeling that there is this one absolute interpretation of a piece that every audience member has to accept. I don’t know where this phenomenon comes from – maybe from the fact that the music world is so canonized. Therefore, thousands of people have heard the same pieces over hundreds of years and have built a universal interpretation. Subtitles in the opera have supported this additionally.
DeleteHowever, after hearing an introduction for a concert or opera, I sometimes sit in the audience and try to find all the meanings in the music/play that the dramaturge has mentioned. And over this search I oftentimes miss to interpret what I see and hear from my own perspective and with regard to my own personal background and feelings.
Therefore, not understanding what the people on the stage are saying could be a real advantage for the audience’s interpretation of the piece. I made this experience last year when I visited a theatre play in Finland. I didn’t understood a word of the whole play, but because I didn’t had to concentrate on the words and their (pretended) interpretation, I was free to actually experience the play itself – the movements and expressions of the actors and the stage setting itself. Through that I created my own interpretation of the piece and had the time to reflect my feelings about it.
In my opinion this is one of the biggest advantages the audience can get out of international theatre. By not knowing the language and the common interpretation of the piece, the audience is free to build their own relationship to the art – without social pressure.
I very much agree with Christina. I think there is great opportunity in exchange by have audiences interpreting art at a different levels of understanding. With theatre, and I am sure with other art forms, there are many different interpretations of a piece from the start. The playwright has his/her own understanding of what they are trying to convey, the director has their own interpretation, each individual actors have their own meanings of the show, and the audiences members interpret this all together with their own life experiences. So an international audience might not understand what a particular directors vision is, but I am sure they can still walk away with something. Like Christina touched on, what an international audience can gain out of an exchange show could be very different had it originated in their own country, city, or town. That is some of the beauty of it....being able to use a different set of eyes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that an uneducated or interpreted immersion has value as well. It comes back to the multiple points of entry into a work (even for international musicians and the same piece). We all bring our own meanings to the experience unless we are told they are invalid or there is only one .....
ReplyDeleteI love the fact that theatre (and art, in general) can be meaningful in different ways to different people. Marissa - absolutely - the differing perspectives and experiences that alter participant/audience experiences are one of the things that make theatre wonderful. I was only questioning the utility of theatre as a form of cultural exchange (a common language) in that the ways in which one culture is portrayed by a piece can be completely misconstrued by another culture. This is not to say that the members of the receiving culture have not engaged in a valuable artistic experience, but that their impressions of the presenting culture may not be what the presenting culture had intended. This does not mean that theatre (art) is not a valuable way to bridge cultural divides, but that the process must be more thoroughly examined to ensure that the impression being made in some real way resembles the impression intended. It's not as simple as it may seem.
ReplyDelete