Questions for Ignorance readers, contributors, & audience

Hello out there! Whether you’re new to the Ignorance blog or a seasoned contributor, please consider the following questions and respond to any or all of them:

  1. How did you hear about the project and how often have you visited the site and/or made comment or post contributions?
  2. How would you describe your experience with the Open Creation process?
  3. Do you have anything else you’d like to say about Open Creation? For example, would you do it again?

The Old Trout Puppet Workshop’s Open Creation process is really unique and, as participants, you’ve helped shape something new in Canadian theatre. With the company’s permission, I’m looking for your feedback to the above questions, as well as for any responses that my questions don’t address. And hey, you can get creative: write, draw, or post video, if that’s what it takes to get your message across.

For the extra-curious, I’m a grad student at the University of Toronto and I’m working on a project to facilitate online playmaking activities between artists and audiences:


About Ashley Bodiguel

Ashley is a grad student at U of T. She is learning how to play the cello.

This entry was posted in General Thoughts and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Questions for Ignorance readers, contributors, & audience

  1. Thank you for your input!

  2. Neandertaler says:

    Hi Ashley,
    Here are my responses:
    1. I saw several of the Trouts’ productions and loved their work. I may have found out about Ignorance directly on their website or through their newsletter. I got pretty involved in the online process (22 posts, if I’ve counted right, and quite a few comments) and eventually even ended up auditioning.
    2. It was a very interesting forum for exchanging ideas, partly because we all have different understandings, beliefs and fantasies about who our distant ancestors might have been, as well as about what happiness means. It was great fun to have a collective dumping ground for some of the weird stuff I found on the net and in my head, and to read some of the whacky and/or profound things other contributors came up with. In terms of the development of the piece itself it worked less well, probably because the Trouts got too busy actually putting the play together. The last intense exchanged culminated in a heated debate about the script and particularly about the ending. That was the point when it became clear (at least for me) that the creation part of the process was best left to the creators: writer, actors, puppeteers. Editing by committee hardly ever gives satisfactory results. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Also, it’s easy to criticize from a distance: as we Flemish put it obtusely (as we Flemish will), “the best sailors are ashore.”
    3. I would definitely do it again, but not necessarily with just any group. It’s not a coincidence that it took some flippant old trouts to come up with an idea as bold as this. As I said, I do believe “open creation” can only be truly open up to a point. After that it will still take some lone, brave soul to shout “enough already!” and lead that trusty band of pioneers to jubilant victory or shattering defeat. The last thing I want to say is that being a Virtual Participant in the process changed the experience of watching the show for me. There are, of course, no Spoiler Alerts on the blog. Then again, I felt quite privileged to witness what these people were able to craft out of all these random ramblings! And humbled to think how right they had been about that Smiley Balloon…