Burlesque

[pamelaneko]

This is a very interesting article by Dan Savage, and it's making the rounds in the burlesque community.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-burlesque-shoah/Content?oid=4399613

"...Because without some negative feedback, without criticism, the local burlesque bubble is destined to burst."

When I started burlesque, I tried very hard to spend time w

Comments

[redhotannie]

We absolutely try to set community standards by who we hire, but there are two problems:

We are in the position where we have to put up "a" show - any show - and regularly. If good people aren't available, we still have to do the show, anyway. We need lots of performers, which is why, when you look around these days, you'll find a lot of people who got their start with us...and no stinkers among them (so far!). We have rehearsal and are constantly scouting new (good) folks so we don't have to use bad ones.

And number two is: if we used the best 8 people at every show, we'd have no audience. The audience doesn't want to see the same people every week, and some good performers have absolutely no draw, anyways!

So, I think we're doing our part...but I see the problem is one that takes performers being self-aware, too. I've seen perfectly good performers shrug after they say they didn't rehearse a mediocore act they just put on stage - and that's something no producer can control. Few performers seek feedback, and many are so complacent that they don't even attend other peoples shows to learn, let alone attend some sort of performance-oriented class. This is the only performance art I can think of like that!

[aynatonal]

Oh, for sure! Filling a line-up can be difficult, and you're doing it something like six times a month. Sometimes, one has to make compromises (although I certainly think your line-ups are generally terrific). And I certainly don't mean to imply that the responsibility for not sucking is on anyone other than the individual performers--there really *is* nothing you can do if someone who is normally reliable shows up unprepared, except not use them if it becomes a chronic issue.

I do think that the closest analogue to the burlesque scene is improv. There are more established avenues for training in improv, but not everyone comes to it that way. It has some of the same quality control issues, the same lack of self-examination, the same gulf between the top practitioners and the folks who are just in it because they love it, or because it feeds some need in them. It's not a perfect analogy, of course (burlesque's body politics are unique to the form, thank goodness), but I do see a lot of parallels.

[pamelaneko]

yeah this is such a tough issue to tackle, especially since our audience is so varied and sometimes doesn't even know what they want to see! I think there are a lot of performers who are totally clueless that they are not good-- however, it seems like audience feedback would just encourage them to blame the audience and society b/c they feel like they have a right to use burlesque to put out whatever they want to, for their own desires.

On the other hand, a lot of audience ppl have told me that they love dancers who are a bit flawed, b/c they are more relateable.