Need help with BD Chop and Paste, Walk and Stand approach to design

[Cappybara]

29 minutes ago, Stu said:

Question: What is the real purpose of creating a Mission Statement and wording it in that manner?

Answer: It is a requirement on the 501c3 application and has to be written that way to receive approval and/or maintain 501c3 status.

Question: How is that statement supposed to be implemented by the corps staff as it applies to the words education and entertainment?

Answer: The way DCI wants them implemented based on DCI definitions not staff artistic desires?

Question: What specifically are the current definitions on how corps staff are to interpret the words?

Answer: According to the powers at be in DCI the corps staff are to primarily educate the performers and primarily entertain the audience.

Question: Where is the evidence those are the current definitions?

Answer: A few years ago DCI solidified the primary definition of GE Audience Engagement as being entertainment while the bulk of the education is to be directed to the performers; and these were reiterated to the various corps staff last week by the DCI Artistic Director.

Hmm where are you getting that the purpose is to primarily entertain the audience? More specifically, where are you getting that the corps should only be entertaining the audience in a certain way (which you seem very happy to put your own definition/spin on)

[Stu]

3 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

Hmm where are you getting that the purpose is to primarily entertain the audience? More specifically, where are you getting that the corps should only be entertaining the audience in a certain way (which you seem very happy to put your own definition/spin on)

To your first question: DCI solidified a few years back that the way GE Audience Engagement is to be defined is in the context of entertainment not education, and this was reittereated by Cesario just last week.

To your second question: I have never said entertainment has to be transmitted in a certain way; a diverse audience commands diverse entertainment. But what I have maintained is that audience engagement is supposed to be entertainment not a push by artistic designers to educate the audience on the progression of the art form in order to promote their own self-interest agendas.

[Cappybara]

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

To your first question: DCI solidified a few years back that the way GE Audience Engagement is to be defined is in the context of entertainment not education, and this was reittereated by Cesario just last week.

To your second question: I have never said entertainment has to be transmitted in a certain way; a diverse audience commands diverse entertainment. But what I have maintained is that audience engagement is supposed to be entertainment not a push by artistic designers to educate the audience on the progression of the art form in order to promote their own self-interest agendas.

Right, but that proposal was worded as allowing judges to take into account audience engagement. There is no requirement to do so. Furthermore, audience engagement comes in many forms and not every member of the audience are the type to yell and get out of their seats when they feel entertained. 

Building off of that into your second point, an audience can be engaged or entertained through cerebral stimulation. DCI defines themselves as "performing arts" which is a very broad brush that allows for both the progression of the art form and simple circus-like entertainment. 

[Stu]

44 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

Right, but that proposal was worded as allowing judges to take into account audience engagement. There is no requirement to do so. Furthermore, audience engagement comes in many forms and not every member of the audience are the type to yell and get out of their seats when they feel entertained. 

Building off of that into your second point, an audience can be engaged or entertained through cerebral stimulation. DCI defines themselves as "performing arts" which is a very broad brush that allows for both the progression of the art form and simple circus-like entertainment. 

My opinion is formulated on the grave concern there has been in DCI over the problem of audience disconnect that grew exponentially post Y2K, the way DCI is now attempting to shift GE engagement from being mainly cerebral with little to no regard for emotional entertainment back to a healthy balance between the two, and the fact Ceserio still finds it necessary to continue to tell the designers to knock it off because audience engagement is not about them, not about their glory, and not about their self-serving artistic desires, but about a healthy balance of various entertainment engagements with those who really keep this activity alive for the enjoyment of the youth, the fans not them. And I venture to say that most of the fans want emotional engagement with some thought provoking moments, not a show designed mainly on cerebral content.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Stu

[mrk]

48 minutes ago, Stu said:

But what I have maintained is that audience engagement is supposed to be entertainment not a push by artistic designers to educate the audience on the progression of the art form in order to promote their own self-interest agendas.

1

I have trouble with the "push by artistic designers to educate the audience" premise. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I don't believe the more esoteric shows that have been given as examples had anything to do with designers prioritizing the education of audiences. At worst, the last part of your sentence may be true in some cases, they were "promoting self-interest agendas". At best they were taking honorable, creative risks that the average audience member was not quite ready for. It brings to mind the scene at the dance in Back to the Future. Marty, after his guitar solo brings everything to a screeching halt, "Well, I guess you're not ready for that. But your kids are gonna love it." 

[Cappybara]

47 minutes ago, Stu said:

My opinion is formulated on the grave concern there has been in DCI over the problem of audience disconnect that grew exponentially post Y2K, the way DCI is now attempting to shift GE engagement from being mainly cerebral with little to no regard for emotional entertainment back to a healthy balance between the two, and the fact Ceserio still finds it necessary to continue to tell the designers to knock it off because audience engagement is not about them, not about their glory, and not about their self-serving artistic desires, but about a healthy balance of various entertainment engagements with those who really keep this activity alive for the enjoyment of the youth, the fans not them. And I venture to say that most of the fans want emotional engagement with some thought provoking moments, not a show designed mainly on cerebral content.

Now that you've clarified your position that there needs to be a balance between audience entertainment and education, I agree with you. 

I think DCI has already currently found that healthy balance 

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Cappybara said:

Now that you've clarified your position that there needs to be a balance between audience entertainment and education, I agree with you. 

I think DCI has already currently found that healthy balance 

Hold on to your Cap there Cap. Did ya not read the various postings where I mentioned that show designs needed both; especially when I cited Angles and Demons as an example multiple times!

[Cappybara]

18 minutes ago, Stu said:

Hold on to your Cap there Cap. Did ya not read the various postings where I mentioned that show designs needed both; especially when I cited Angles and Demons as an example multiple times!

Ah and now there's a disconnect again. Yes, you did indeed say that, but in that example, you are saying that the show has to be entertaining on the surface and educational on the deeper side. 

What I am saying is that there is room for shows that are mostly educational (or are pushing something that the designers want the audience to get), or mostly entertaining, or a hybrid of both. We don't have to have only hybrids. 

[Stu]

2 hours ago, mrk said:

I have trouble with the "push by artistic designers to educate the audience" premise. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I don't believe the more esoteric shows that have been given as examples had anything to do with designers prioritizing the education of audiences. At worst, the last part of your sentence may be true in some cases, they were "promoting self-interest agendas". At best they were taking honorable, creative risks that the average audience member was not quite ready for. It brings to mind the scene at the dance in Back to the Future. Marty, after his guitar solo brings everything to a screeching halt, "Well, I guess you're not ready for that. But your kids are gonna love it." 

The short libretto handed out by one corps, Regiment, in the eighties had, by post Y2K, turned into long-winded press releases, website pages full of explanations, and pre-show tutorial courses presented by nearly all of the top corps in DCI.  Um.... that is a situation where artistic designers actually are thinking it is necessary to push education onto the audience in order to transmit their craft effectively.

Interesting that you brought up the Marty McFly excerpt. He went that direction out of passion, stopped when he found out the reaction, and then made that simple statement. He did not try to explain it to the audience, play something similar a second time, then when the audience began to voice concern go into a diatribe of tutorial explanation concerning the progression of the art form in order to educate the audience into accepting his own personal interest, then continue to play that way not altering his path but still putting out all of that side-bar educational information (which is what many DCI designers have done).

[Stu]

2 hours ago, Cappybara said:

Now that you've clarified your position that there needs to be a balance between audience entertainment and education, I agree with you. 

I think DCI has already currently found that healthy balance 

DCI is not a post high school academic institution, nor does it exist in progressive art houses where pushing the educational envelope is to be expected. Unless I am mistaken, while being a non-profit DCI exists in the marketplace world of music and visual performance competition that is also there to provide for maximized public entertainment; even going so far as promoting themselves as Major League.  All other activities in that vein have coaches to educate the performers and impartial adjudicators evaluating the on-field performance, which DCI also has, but while their design of play is intended to both garner the win 'and for the entertainment of the paying audience' DCI had slipped into the mode of attempting to educate not entertain the paying audience.  If designers want to push that educational envelope move it to art houses and academic auditoriums and educate everyone to your heats desire; at least that would be more honest than what was going on just after Y2K.