Something I take away from it is with regards to what I consider to be the most important job of any performing artist and whoever is part of the audience. For performers, it's alright to wish to impress everyone, to earn recognition, and to feel that you're skilled at what you do. For audience members, it's alright to wish for a spectacular performance, to hope that they'll do something specific that will please you, and to feel that those on stage have every right to play there, if not somewhere even better. But even if a performer's talent is successfully acknowledged by a member of the audience, if either party had been unable to enjoy themselves during the show, if either of them are unable to say that they are glad that they were there, and if neither of them had had fun, just how successful of a performance was it really? For example, a band can be playing for a sold-out concert hall and not miss a single note or beat, but that doesn't guarantee that anyone involved will feel like cheering enthusiastically once the show's over. Quality and talent can contribute to enjoyment, but that they cannot always produce it to begin with. Correlation does imply causation.
The most important duty for any performing artist and any audience member to uphold is, above all, to have fun. The number of seats filled and the quality of the performance should never determine if the people there enjoy themselves. And it's not just the audience who needs to make sure they have a good time. The performers need to be in a good mood as well. Both parties need to have fun if this is to work. Not one. Not the other. Both.
No comments:
Post a Comment