clevermanka (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
clevermanka) wrote2011-09-11 09:12 am
clevermanka) wrote2011-09-11 09:12 am
Entry tags:
Performers and Entertainers
This is the only 9/11 article I've read in the past, oh, three months. Or more. I've been avoiding them, because really...how do they help? I think that article is more valuable and truthful than any analysis or retrospective.
I am a combination of amused/disconcerted/relieved that I'm bellydancing at Smoker today. Amused because, well, that's my sense of humor for you. Disconcerted because I worry that some people will be put off at it and I'm not a person who aims to make her audience uncomfortable. And relieved because I'm glad it's me, not one of the other dancers, who is dealing with it.
On the drive to site last weekend, I had a good conversation with Stephanie (one of the other Smoker dancers) about what I see as the difference between Performers and Entertainers. These are just the titles I chose to assign. The words (Performer versus Entertainer) themselves don't matter, but I think the distinctions of type are important.
A Performer has a compulsion to create art out of his body. It can be done through acting, dance, performance art, whatever. But there's a need to do that drives him--much like the person who has ideas and is, at the least, very uncomfortable until those ideas can be put out into the world. A Performer's motivation is largely internal.
An Entertainer is inspired by his audience and has difficulty practicing his craft with nobody watching. It's not always narcissism (although it can be, for some), but rather that the entertainer finds reward in the pleasing of his audience. He is not creating to satisfy a need in himself, but rather for the satisfaction of those watching. An Entertainer's motivation is largely external.
Understanding the difference between those two types of artists is crucial, especially if you are in the entertainment business. It's important to analyze an artist's inclination toward one or the other and hire the right type for your production. In a variety show, or multiple-billed production, it's a good idea to include a mix of both types.
It's also a good idea for an artist to recognize and be honest about the category to which he belongs. Some people can cross back and forth, but the people who are equally balanced between the two types are few and far between. Knowing where you fall on this spectrum can help you get the most out of your performance gigs--emotionally and, possibly, financially.
As I start to seriously branch out into more public performance opportunities*, this sort of contemplation and analysis is becoming more important to me. What do you think of my categories? If you think they're valid, do they help you understand more about your own desires/needs as a performer or audience member? If you're already of a like mind about the general idea, what are your own types and definitions? Or do you disagree with the notion entirely?
Oh, and in case there's anyone who isn't sure where I place myself (I find that hard to believe, but there are some people who read this LJ who've not met me in person or seen me perform), I'm solidly in the Entertainer camp.
*For serious and real this time.
I am a combination of amused/disconcerted/relieved that I'm bellydancing at Smoker today. Amused because, well, that's my sense of humor for you. Disconcerted because I worry that some people will be put off at it and I'm not a person who aims to make her audience uncomfortable. And relieved because I'm glad it's me, not one of the other dancers, who is dealing with it.
On the drive to site last weekend, I had a good conversation with Stephanie (one of the other Smoker dancers) about what I see as the difference between Performers and Entertainers. These are just the titles I chose to assign. The words (Performer versus Entertainer) themselves don't matter, but I think the distinctions of type are important.
A Performer has a compulsion to create art out of his body. It can be done through acting, dance, performance art, whatever. But there's a need to do that drives him--much like the person who has ideas and is, at the least, very uncomfortable until those ideas can be put out into the world. A Performer's motivation is largely internal.
An Entertainer is inspired by his audience and has difficulty practicing his craft with nobody watching. It's not always narcissism (although it can be, for some), but rather that the entertainer finds reward in the pleasing of his audience. He is not creating to satisfy a need in himself, but rather for the satisfaction of those watching. An Entertainer's motivation is largely external.
Understanding the difference between those two types of artists is crucial, especially if you are in the entertainment business. It's important to analyze an artist's inclination toward one or the other and hire the right type for your production. In a variety show, or multiple-billed production, it's a good idea to include a mix of both types.
It's also a good idea for an artist to recognize and be honest about the category to which he belongs. Some people can cross back and forth, but the people who are equally balanced between the two types are few and far between. Knowing where you fall on this spectrum can help you get the most out of your performance gigs--emotionally and, possibly, financially.
As I start to seriously branch out into more public performance opportunities*, this sort of contemplation and analysis is becoming more important to me. What do you think of my categories? If you think they're valid, do they help you understand more about your own desires/needs as a performer or audience member? If you're already of a like mind about the general idea, what are your own types and definitions? Or do you disagree with the notion entirely?
Oh, and in case there's anyone who isn't sure where I place myself (I find that hard to believe, but there are some people who read this LJ who've not met me in person or seen me perform), I'm solidly in the Entertainer camp.
*For serious and real this time.
no subject
i had an art student once who wrote me an essay where he divided artists into what he called 'imagists' who were artists who were about the end product, and i forget the other term, but they were all about the process.
i think if we had had the interweb and all the digital junk that goes with it when i was a young 'un my trajectory might have been rather different. i certainly like a dialogue with my audience, and my pleasure in social media is all about that. just making stuff and putting it out there was always a bit too delayed reaction for me.
no subject
no subject
no subject
pretty interesting, though off topic of your discussion. in context he meant a similar thing to your 'performer' in that these painters would just keep painting with or without encouragement (van gough for example). i have to say i must be rather in the other camp. i like the craft of words or paint, but the communication with others is everything to me.
no subject
Ah! Got it.
no subject
How do rants or sermons, which can be works of art spoken, written, or rapped, fit in? The artist obviously has something she wants to get out, but at the same time, she is trying to persuade her audience of her point of view.
Myself, I think I am more on the Entertainer side, with respect to some singing, some blog writing, and most music playing; while being a Performer/Creator for other singing (there's got to be some reason I sing in empty rooms other than the shower), drawing, dancing, and possibly for literary writing. And, to my surprise, theatre. I really couldn't engage with my audience while saying someone else's script in a closed imaginary world on the theatre stage; what was left was doing it to an internal standard I had to hold inside myself.
Now that I think of it, I think the dichotomy does not quite capture the "I would do it even if there was nobody watching, but people watching and liking it makes it twice as fun". Which is what writing and singing is, to me.
I wonder if your dichotomy could be summed up in whether the person has an internal standard that can be different from pleasing your audience. A Creator/Performer could be spotted if she comes backstage and her fellow artists say, "You knocked them dead, they loved you!" and she says, "Yeah, but it was crap, I missed a note here, and I got totally out of sync there..." while an Entertainer would be floating on air going, "Ooh yeah, they did!"
Thought-provoking.
no subject
An Entertainer taken to the extreme would be something like "Jackass" or Tom Green movies (I am going by hearsay and reviews in both cases). A Creator-Performer taken to the extreme would be super-postmodern art of any kind, or, as Scalzi explains, the Star Wars prequels. (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2006/10/11/the-lie-of-star-wars-as-entertainment/)
Thought: for an Entertainer, hanging out with Creator-Performers will improve the execution of her art, keeping her from sticking with only a few songs because that's what the drunks at the local pub like; while for a Creator-Performer, hanging out with Entertainers will improve the conception of her art, keeping her from going on a wild postmodern tangle that nobody but she understands, and she doesn't realize that.
no subject
If the artist's priority is to sway the audience to her point of view, then I believe that artist falls into the Performer category, because her focus is what she is trying to give the audience, not how or if the audience is responding to the message.
I am not sure if Entertainer is the best word for someone who really wants to move an audience to tears.
Whether the message is happy or sad, I would classify the desire to fulfill an audience expectation under Entertainer. Even if the subject isn't funny.
Creator/Performer could be spotted if she comes backstage and her fellow artists say, "You knocked them dead, they loved you!" and she says, "Yeah, but it was crap, I missed a note here, and I got totally out of sync there..." while an Entertainer would be floating on air going, "Ooh yeah, they did!"
Nailed it. Exactly.
I agree with your extreme examples, too. It's always good to surround yourself with people whose inclinations differ from yours, listen to their input, and honestly assess how their ideas can keep you from becoming an extremist.
no subject
I think you know that I was in the Entertainer camp when I was doing gigs.
I just didn't understand doing hours of practicing choreographies when an audience more often required quick inprov skills, especially for things like party and pub performances.
I used to use the terms Artist and Entertainer, as in "you hear a lot about starving artists, but there aren't as many starving entertainers." But I appreciate the performers' dedication, and yes, above commenter is right, they do force us to reach a higher goal for technique. Some of them have accused me of being a sellout for the money, and trading the art of the dance for tawdry entertainment, and I just ignored that attitude as best I could.
Performers seem to like dancing at seminars, for the feedback from other dancers. I didn't care so much for it once I'd established myself as a working dancer, by then, I really didn't care what other dancers thought about me.
no subject
especially for things like party and pub performances
And I feel pretty safe saying that both of us prefer and feel more comfortable performing at party/pub gigs.
Some of them have accused me of being a sellout for the money, and trading the art of the dance for tawdry entertainment
It's too bad when people don't understand that there is plenty of room for all types. And that goes beyond just this discussion! Tribal/Cabaret fistfights, anyone? *sigh*
no subject
Fisfights, haha! Zil-flinging! With the whole argument ending in the "know your damned history" trump card!
no subject
no subject
Now, now. Let's not start making comparisons that way. Our talents are different, and neither are more or less valuable!
You are a fantastic entertainer.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Do you miss performing-with-a-lower-case-p?
no subject
Do you miss performing-with-a-lower-case-p?
Yes. Very much.
no subject
And here is my mouth-wide-open icon. =D
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject