So I've finally realized that there is a gnawing urge within me to perform,

I have a gnawing urge to punch passersby in the face, dosen't mean I should obey it.

I started acting (and later directing) by taking classes. For me, I like the structure of classes, as well as the built-in feedback and support they provide. It gave me a good framework for exploring on my own, and good confidence because I knew that I had been trained by professionals.

But I'm a big fan of structure in general, which I realize is now always the case with creative people.

not. Not always the case.

Also, on reread, that came off as snotty, and I didn't mean it that way. I just know that for myself, I can't function in pretty much anything unless I have step-by-step training at the beginning. I know a lot of other people do better by jumping in with both feet and seeing how it goes. It may help to think about what kind of person you are -- if you're the first type, then classes would be helpful; if you're the second, then maybe just go audition at the local community theater (or other-artform equivalent)?

brutally honest advice: do your thing in front of somebody who has no emotional investment in your self-esteem. If they think you have talent, then take a class or something. If not, take a civil service test, so you can retire young.

And after skimming over the AskMe answers:

One thing that really mattered to me, and allowed me to act without much problem, is knowing that I have no problem performing in front of people as long as I'm not appearing as myself. I rarely got stage fright when I was playing a role, because it wasn't really "me" on stage. I had lines someone else wrote, I had direction someone else envisioned, I had a costume that someone else put together. I had worked to make all those things my own, but it still wasn't me. That was hugely important to me. I could act a lead role in a play in front of hundreds of people, but if I had had to give a speech as myself I would have stumbled and blushed and run off stage.

So, the suggestions for public-speaking courses and magic shows and things would not have worked for me. I know that those are overlapping categories for some people, but I guess I'm just saying that it's ok if they're not overlapping categories for you.

On preview: Yeah, it took me a looooooong time to feel comfortable practicing or doing monologues or whatever in front of my friends and family. But other people find that easier, so again ... a lot of it is just listening to what you think you need and not caring so much if it's not the "right" way of going about it.

Drink. When I started performing poetry in front of people I was terrified. It took a four drink minimum to quell my nerves enough to be able to stand in front of people and manage to speak. Even then I suffered from shaky hands and an unexpectedly breaking voice.

I'm better than I was. I don't need the drink so much. I still get nervous, but I can keep those nerves mostly hidden. I've developed tools for hiding those nerves. I pace around a bit, I've got a verbal style that is practised enough that I can drop into it without thinking too much.

The main thing that's worked for me though is practice. Just the act of getting up in front of people over and over again has numbed my fight or flight response to such a degree that I can appear almost confident.

One other point. I NEVER turn down an opportunity to perform. The way I figure it is, that every chance is a chance to hone my skills. Even if I don't want to do it, or I think it'll make me look silly, I still go for it.

And what occhiblu said is correct. It's an order of magnitude more terrifying being yourself in front of people. I've no idea why that is, but it is.

Rather than drinking, you might want to give beta-blockers a try.

or not. The last thing the world needs is more people who think they have 'talent.'

you might want to give beta-blockers a try

Of course you'd want your doctor's approval.

And let no one else be a judge of your potential. Do it for yourself.

is knowing that I have no problem performing in front of people as long as I'm not appearing as myself.

This is why it took me so many many years to actually dance at a club. I danced from three years old and perfomed countless times, quit when I was 13 and by the time I was of proper age to go to clubs I would not move because OMG, not choreographed.

Now I just don't give a shit. That helps.

jon, we get it.

Now I just don't give a shit. That helps.

Hee. Yeah, for me too. I can't tell if that's a function of getting older, or of just learning to be more comfortable performing in different, less predictable situations.

the last thing the world needs is more people who think they have 'talent.'

Meow.

I'm hoping here that you're implying that beta-blockers make you think you've got talent. But if not ...

The more people that want to be creative, the better. Talent is not an issue here, and neither is some imagined shot at fame. It's about a desire to make something that other people like. Scrub that. It's about a desire to make something. It's the reason why we have Photo Fridays and recipes on metachat.

It's telling jokes and old nostalgic stories to friends, it's setting up a college band. It's performing to three people in a run-down old theatre. It's writing passionately about the bands you love because you love those bands and you want to write.

Just do it.

I'm a musician and it's so deeply rooted in me at this point that I can't imagine stopping. Ever. I had stopped for about 5 years, but I life was always just a little wrong. So I play.

I'm also a natural ham. I find it very easy to give presentations and so on, so I make a point of doing that at work.

The more people that want to be creative, the better.

You sure about that? or does that just mean more bad plays/movies/books etc. for us culture vultures to complain about?

Talent is not an issue here,

Then why do we always complain (at MeFi) about the invasion of 'Fark-type' people?

Creativity's great and all that shit, but at the end of the day there's a difference between making your online friends laugh and being a comedian, between throwing together a quick retort and being a writer, between fingerpainting and being an artist, and part of growing up is realizing that. Unfortunately our American Idol bred, self-esteem worshipping society has led everybody else to belive otherwise, that life is only worth living if your a 'star,' even on some tiny level, and believe me as a favorite checking MeFite, I know the allure. But really, is there any shame in admitting that not everybody is a star, that we're not all great, that some of us were simply born to be functionaries and should be content with karaoke and weblog laughs?


jon, we get it.

No. You don't.

jonmc, you don't get it.

Did anyone say you have to be FAMOUS to perform? No. You can perform because it's fun, it's a workout (e.g. dance or circus), it's silly, for all sorts of things. It doesn't have to be for public approval. Did the OP say s/he wanted to be a star?

And if it is for public approval - so what? Who's the arbitrate of talent anyway? Why can't anyone just be a star if they wished? If they love it, more power to them!

Some people do things because they like doing them or at least giving them a try. Not everyone's motivation to do everything is driven by the attention and or want of the approval of others. Just some people who like to go on and on about the same things during their regularly scheduled drunkenness.

Holy christ jon.

There's a difference between assuming that one is automatically destined to be a star, and fulfilling a personal (and universal) need for expression and creativity. Given's Sasshat's question is about self-expression and exploring creativity, not about some get-rich-quick star-power thing, I'm not sure why (other than pure contrariness and possibly drinking) you're insisting on shooting her down.

1. I would like to note that eth's comment was not up when I mentioned drinking.

2. I would like to add the capital H that I left out of SassHat's name. So here: H

Divabat, you don't get it. Jon cannot be praised for being exceptional so we must praise him for being mediocre at best. Since we cannot, he must get more and more pitiful and persistently annoying until he passes out and pretends we pretend this never happened. Repeat ad nauseum.

occhiblu, I was thinking the same. I would love to see Sass grow as a person in the ways she chooses. She doesn't need my approval.

(also, I'm worried about jon sometimes especially on days like today when all his comments seem a bit sharp.)

ethylene: ...*confused* obviously i'm missing some backstory here.

Not really. Just the same story over and over. Almost word for word.
"IGNORE ME!"

i keep forgetting every thread is really just an opportunity for some people to showcase their recurring themes and how they view the world through them. Between jon and a couple others, i keep getting the feeling it might be better to go for higher ground because people are happy to expect the same regular beat to death bloody floodwater, so "my kind" should know to go away.

I seldom take a big role in these discussions, both because I don't want to feel like I'm piling on and because they repeat like a broken goddamn record, but here goes:

We get it, jon. This is your thing--the self-deprecation, and the part where you try to make everyone else feel bad too. Life is meaningless and ambition is a waste of time. Trying to improve things, either in the world around you or in your own life, is equally pointless. That thing? We get it. We get it all the freaking time.

But I'm not sure what you get out of it. I mean, nobody ever changes their mind. We never manage to convince you that you're great, and you never manage to convince us that we suck. Because from where I'm standing, that sure looks like what you're doing. It's one thing to say 'Oh, Britney Spears isn't a good singer.' It's quite another to say, 'SassHat, you shouldn't try to express yourself creatively.' I think there's a big difference between the two, and that's what spurred me to say something in this thread. A decision that I may live to regret.

also, I'm worried about jon sometimes especially on days like today when all his comments seem a bit sharp.

save your worry for someone who needs it. I'm merely stating the obvious. I live in a city where verybody thinks they're a fucking artist of some sort and quite frankly, I'm sick of all of them. There are other things that need doing in the world.

'SassHat, you shouldn't try to express yourself creatively.'

No. I told her to find out from an objective source whether she's actually any good at it. If not, she should spare herself and the world a lot of grief and embarassment.

Go to bed, jon.

Damn. Jon. It's like deja vu all over again. On a daily basis every one of us is reminded in many little ways that we're lackluster or mediocre or not good enough or full of ourselves or whatever....we don't need to get beat over the head by the possibility of it via you every goddamn time we come here. Just stop already.

SassHat, I'm not the right person to ask, since I haven't actually performed per se since high school and then I always played either the old lady or, if we couldn't get enough guys, a guy, since I'm tall. Hey, that's how come I always got to be Joseph in Christmas plays. I will tell you, though, that when I started giving tours in museums, I was terrified. The first time I had to do it I actually had to give an entire talk on Baroque art to a room full of teachers. I was so scared but my boss said, look, you may not think it, but you actually know a whole lot more about Baroque art than a group of elementary school teachers. And she was right; I did; they were very interested and very nice. I learned a lot from giving tours to every age group under the sun and then I did some teaching, which is more of a performance thing than you might think. Last week it turned out I know more about the solar system than third graders, go figure! Okay, I may have warped their small brains permanently on the phases of the moon, but hey, they know their planets and the relative sizes totally. Also, some unscripted stuff about the terror of black holes - value added!

The key for me is and has always been to prepare, prepare, prepare. If you really know your subject matter or your songs or your lines or your routine or whatever it is that you're going to do in public than you totally do know it better than your audience, whatever it is. And, you know, remember the audience wants to be there. You're making them happy just by having the guts to stand up and do something - nobody wants to stare at the potted palms all night.

I'm just really glad they finally made the "nojonmc" greasemonkey script. It makes my days much less bleak.

Can we please not make this another thread about jonmc?

I grew up playing guitar- my parents did, and I always wanted to learn, and I did learn. And then I became a teenager and was a camp counselor. At camp, there were always campfires at which somebody needed to play "Leavin' on a Jet Plane" and "Circle Game" and "Big Yellow Taxi" and "Fire and Rain," and I gradually became that person. I mined classic rock radio and my parents' albums for songs and learned a ton of radio hits and party favorites.

But I never played in front of anyone other than friends or campers. Music made me feel fantastic and I loved playing and singing with others, but I was crippled by the fear that I wasn't 'good' enough.

One day, during a camp summer, I was out with a group of friends at a local bar. The bar band was playing some of the stuff I usually played. My friend Dave said "You should get up and sing with them!" I was all, no no no no no. But I had just enough beer in me to be convinced. I got up and sang "Me and Bobbie McGee," and went to get off the stage, but the band leader said "Wait! What else do you know?" He showed me their setlist and I knew a couple - I sang "Reason to Believe" with him, and then "Wild World."

I got a lot of support for this. People said it sounded good, which really encouraged me. That led to my playing a lot of local gigs in the 90s, even spending one summer trying to make a living on music ...and living to tell the tale.

One thing I regret is never really giving it my all when I was young enough to want it. There were always obstacles of money and other jobs and stuff like that. If I had it to do over again, I'd put all my resources between ages 23 and 28 to music. But that doesn't take away how much I enjoy it. I ended up performing with the music staff at one of my museums, and I still play in sessions, write songs, and do the occasional local gig. It's not too late to get more serious, but it's also not as necessary as it used to feel.

Stage fright used to be a real challenge. It's a journey - just make yourself do it. Listen to all the positive comments and totally dismiss any negatives. Do it because you enjoy it - your enjoyment shows and spills over to the audience. It gets easier and easier every time. Watch people you admire really closely and try to notice what it is about them you want to emulate. Ask their advice. Keep going after it. Being involved in the performing arts is this amazing communion between people. It's transformative.

One thing I used to get hung up on, like I said, was the 'good enough' question. Then a fellow musician I was working with one day finally exploded at me. "What is this GOOD ENOUGH?" He asked. "Who cares if you're good enough? Did Bob Dylan think he had a good enough voice? Who thinks they're good enough? What is good? Who cares about good? The real thing to pay attention to is that YOU have a good time playing music, and people have a good time listening to you. What more do you want?"

Getting free of worrying about meeting an invisible standard has opened up a lot of creativity. It obviously doesn't mean not trying to improve and not being critical of yourself, but it means giving yourself permission to do your art. You have just as much right as anyone to make art.

I grew up loving theatre because my Dad loves theatre. I've always loved a chance to get up in front of people and do something I was proud to do- I hate performing when I don't feel ready or don't like the material. I decided in high school that acting wasn't something I wanted to pursue as a profession, which gave me the freedom I want to only do things that I know I'll be proud of. So you go, SassHat! You do something you'll be proud of!

I replied in askme, and I hope it doesn't sound harsh. I support you in anything you undertake.

With anything creative, it is something you do, and not doing it doesn't make wanting to do it go away. Actually doing it gives you the advantage of getting some practice in so you will invariably get better at it just by virtue of experience, while just trying to kill wanting to do it just makes you bitter about it and prone to spastic rationalization making that doesn't seem to get any better no matter how much you do it.
Lots of people do just suck at stuff, but lots of people also have low expectations. It's always better to do it because you just feel like it, because just because some people like it, doesn't mean it's any good anyway.
If you're lucky, what you might get is a good sense of what you think is good and bad, so you can judge what you do no matter what anyone else says, good or bad.

Speaking of performance, I've wanted one of these for years...
≡ Click to see image ≡

(get your dollar bills ready ; )

I would love to take pole-dancing lessons, no joke! It looks like a good workout and a lot of fun. And if I could bust out those moves casually at a club, like- I'm dancing, I'm dancing, I'M SPINNING AROUND UPSIDE DOWN ON THE POLE... I would be so cool. It's on my to-do list, for sure.

*gets her dollar bills ready*

Haha Pips I posted that but your comment hadn't come up on preview yet. Awesome!

I mean your follow up comment, obvs. TPS, I think you should def take some pole dancing lessons. We support you in this idea wholeheartedly. I heard you can get a lot of bruises doing it though, so be careful!

The only way you can get jon to spend money on you, pips? (I keed, I keed, because jon's being a mcass)

It is supposed to be a fine workout... Now, if you really want a challenge, try it greased!

(How do you think we met, wendell. Except I was the one with the roll of bills... ; )

Oh, hai, look! I haz found plase to talk about jonmc! No more heer, plz.

PIPS. You're going to make me have an accident!!! :P

Taz, have I told you lately that I [heart] you?

On reading ethylene's last comment, it occurs to me that you can translate intuitive eating principles to this.

* Do the things that appeal to you, regardless of what people thing.

* If you like them, and want to do more of them, do more of them.

* If you don't like them and are only doing them because you think you should, stop.

* Assume that your soul knows what it wants, and will eventually get sick of things that aren't fulfilling you, and will always crave those things that it knows you need.

think. THINK. Regardless of what people THINK.

Sigh.

I thing you're right, occhi :)

Good. I like being right. :)

On reading rainbaby's comment in AskMe: I think what she's saying is totally true in many ways, that performing can be a fairly dysfunctional response to the world. But I have a fairly longstanding rant about why that's often the case -- we as a society repress emotion to the point where those who express it (like actors) pretty much have to be off the deep end. There's a fetishized sense that creativity comes from being broken open, because there's an assumption that being "emotionally healthy" means always being stable and static and strong, and being creative always entails a loss of those things.

(I'm about to dive into gender theory shit here, so skip if you don't like Freud and his offshoots. Or wild bullshitting based on any of the above. (I was an English major, I am certified to wildly bullshit about all of the above.))

But, think about this biologically. To create, men generally do lose something; they ejaculate previously internally contained bits of themselves into the world. Women, however, create by adding to themselves, by becoming more whole. Not by breaking down, but by building up, by incorporating inspiration from the world around and making something new, and whole, from it.

So I feel like this idea that creative people have to be broken comes from this framework we've created that's (a) based on the Western fetishization of self-reliance and (b) male. It's a framework, not a given.

I had a professor once point out that in contemporary times, we prize Michelangelo's unfinished works much more than his finished ones, while in the past it was the opposite. In this age of Freud, we think we can divine his intentions more when we can see his chisel work; we think the struggle of the slave to break free of the marble is symbolic and mythical -- rather than the sign of an artist who couldn't commit or make whole. We hold up ambiguity and disintegration as real and authentic; in the past, academics discarded his unfinished works as unworthy of study, because they were incomplete, fragmented, "broken" in many ways.

All of this to say: I think it takes courage, and openness, and sometimes insanity, to perform successfully in our current culture. But I don't think being broken is an inherent part of creativity -- in fact, I think being whole and filled and bursting is biologically the prerequisite for creation -- and I think it's possible (if not easy) to pursue a creativity that doesn't tear you in half... at least not permanently.

Occhi, I really appreciate your insights. Here, there and everywhere. Thanks. I'm more of a Jung fan myself, though. /nerd joke

Overall I'm getting a lot of good ideas and advice, and I'm happy to sit back for a spell and think about what I want to do. I really am just interested in means of self expression. It didn't even occur to me it was Oscars night until after I posted the thread - I don't have a TV and haven't really kept an eye on any kind of pop culture this week due to some personal stuff. So while some might want to suggest that I'm looking for a sparkly spotlight of fame and self-aggrandizing glory, I'm not. And if I were, well, I *AM* pretty awesome, so fuck off. :P

I'm more of a Jung fan myself, though.

Oh lordy, me too. I just always feel the need to claim Freudianism if I'm talking about sexual function or lack thereof!

I'm more of a Jung fan myself, though.

Is it just me, or did that sound a little rude?

.

Just me then.

whistles, edges away

occhiblu, that is the most brain driven take on gender theory and performance theory I have ever heard. I only know what I feel - busted open, vunerable, and spent. The male model. Your female model sounds like knitting or something.

I do subscribe to the male gaze theory - that works of art and performances are made for and judged from a male point of view, which makes it doubly difficult (but not impossible) for a woman to create something honest and true, so I'm not dismissing your thinking about the matter in gender terms or anything, but that just sounded soooo different than my expereince, I had to comment!

The occhi/rainbaby exchange makes me think of the [very gendered] split between art and craft. Hmm.

I don't think there's always a single reason for performing. There are people who have a need for the attention, but there are also people who hate the attention and power through it because something about the art satisfies them.

There might be some differences between acting and musical performance - there's obviously a lot of overlap, too.

As for theatre, I think the Greeks nailed it - was it Aristotle? - who talks about how people need to be humanized by experience, but experience is drastic and hard-edged, and we can prepare emotionally for experience and gradually humanize our response through vicarious experiences with theatre (leading to catharsis, which no one really knows how to define, but I would say it is a oneness with the emotional truth of the performance). So the actor's job then becomes to recall, depict, and amplify emotional truth, re-opening and living within whole realms of difficult emotion for decent lengths of time, when those emotions are not even ones they are necessarily personally experiencing, or have experienced. It makes sense that being already a fairly emotional, expressive person would help with this. It makes sense that within acting, you find a lot of people who have had family drama - they understand extremes of feeling and behavior, and have a schema for them. It makes sense that you find people who felt they were different - in both good and bad ways - from others, because at some point they realized we're all performing, all the time, and that they had some mastery over it.

But you also find essentially shy people who got into it for self-therapy, people who love musicals or dance, people who found out they had a gift and enjoyed it, people who love the art of drama itself and take joy in bringing words to life, and people who do it therapeutically for others.

box - occhi's take could also be read as Men Are From Dionysius, Women are from Apollo. It just doesn't jive with me.

box - occhi's take could also be read as Men Are From Dionysius, Women are from Apollo. It just doesn't jive with me.

I explained badly (and was thinking about this even before reading y'all's responses): I didn't mean to imply that, in the arts, men create like this and women create like that. I just wanted to point out that our assumptions about creativity are culture-bound, and that you don't even have to look farther than biological creativity to understand that there could be different models for approaching creating. I think we've embraced one certain model, and there are advantages to it (if only therapeutic!), but I think it's important to remember that there are disadvantages as well -- and that other models might avoid some of those disadvantages and play up other advantages.

Which I think takes us back to Jungian ideas of shadow sides, so I feel better now. :-)

I just wanted to point out that our assumptions about creativity are culture-bound

Not everyone's.
There are people who don't grow up with romantic ideas about creativity, or even in a cultural void, and if anything, it makes them far for free than people bound by any cultural conformity of ridiculous mythical cliches.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't a myth that people who create generally do so because they feel to, and not having that need doesn't make you incapable of being creative, but it does differentiate you from people driven to do whatever they do for the sake of doing it. And those are more likely the people who succeed in those things they do: because they do them, by discipline, drive or both.

And being creative is very much about survival and coping and just another tactic of survival, and i mean creative thinking in all aspects of life, not just "arts."
It does not mean it is the intuitive natural default state of everyone.

And this is my 10000th comment, which i was holding off for a surprise something else until seanyboy made the idea fall in the poo.

But my ten o'clock flaked on me so there it is.

Now i can take a nap, hopefully.

To create, men generally do lose something; they ejaculate previously internally contained bits of themselves into the world. Women, however, create by adding to themselves, by becoming more whole. Not by breaking down, but by building up, by incorporating inspiration from the world around and making something new, and whole, from it.

Interesting. But we can grant that gender-based modes of creativity exist without granting those roles gender exclusivity. Because every act of creation necessarily leaves something behind ("expression": from Latin 'exprimre', to press out). All creative work is assimilative, no matter who does it. That we then evaluate output instead of process doesn't strike me as particularly "male"... but then, maybe I'm so far through the mirror on this that I can't see it straight.

I think it takes courage, and openness, and sometimes insanity, to perform successfully in our current culture. But I don't think being broken is an inherent part of creativity -- in fact, I think being whole and filled and bursting is biologically the prerequisite for creation -- and I think it's possible (if not easy) to pursue a creativity that doesn't tear you in half... at least not permanently.

Quoted for quotey goodness quotient.

Much contemporary art seems to me explicitly to be about the construction of the artist's self -- which tends to be kinda boring, because if I wanted art-as-therapy, I'd go string beads.

[NOT BEADIST]

As to performance: I've acted, juggled, done improv & stand-up, sang and played in bands. All of it badly. All of it amateurishly. And I loved every minute of it. I did it out of pure ego, the desire to be seen and meet chicks. I made no great art and left no lasting impression (though I did meet chicks!). That said, my advice for SassHat is to be prepared to fail, be prepared to be exhilarated, and be prepared to be scrutinized. What I got out of performing ultimately had nothing to do with the quality of the performance, as acutely as it might have felt at the time. It was the preparation, the mental exercise, the concentration, and the sheer joy of it that sticks with me these years later.

Go forth and fail. It's the only way anything ever gets done anyway. :)

I am way, WAY late to this thread, but I would recommend this book for an excellent take on the joy of being creative for its own sake.

Tossing this out there for the sake of interest/conversation - do y'all think there's something intrinsically different in performance as opposed to the other arts in terms of both the creative urge and, maybe, some kind of need for approval an a very individual basis? When I was in (art) college we all watched Amadeus and there was a tremendous ongoing argument about whether that kind of poisoned mentor relationship/intense competition was even possible in the visual arts, given that they're just so incredibly different than the performing arts. The creative urge is, I guess, essentially the same but for visual artists - and writers - without a performance aspect is the need for approval the same? Clearly, an audience is always a factor (unless you're Henry Darger) and art of all kinds exists to be first created by the self and then experienced by the other but in everything but performance the audience is at least one step removed. And then there's the question of interpretation - a visual artist or a writer is creating directly from his/her own stuff, whereas an actor or musician or dancer is often if not primarily interpreting the work of a playwright or composer or choreographer. So does this make the creative urge the same or different and if so, what's different about it?

But we can grant that gender-based modes of creativity exist without granting those roles gender exclusivity.

Yes. I meant to state that explicitly in my last comment and kinda drifted off on it. I was taking that as an assumption and just stupidly didn't state it, which led to confusion I could have avoided. Sorry 'bout that.

Much contemporary art seems to me explicitly to be about the construction of the artist's self -- which tends to be kinda boring, because if I wanted art-as-therapy, I'd go string beads.

Yes. That's what I was trying to get at with the Michelangelo thing; I think people often prize the artist's struggle more than the art itself. The majority of my rant actually came from listening to the artistic director of a fairly well-regarded regional theater going on and on about how Marilyn Monroe was a good actor because she was screwed up personally, insisting that one had to be broken as a prerequisite to doing art, and that the more broken one is, the better the art will be. It struck me as a bizarre argument, but I do think we (myself included) often fall into that assumption without really realizing it.

And eth, yeah, I think we'd all be better off in the void you mention. But I don't think that void is the dominant cultural myth going on right now.

So does this make the creative urge the same or different and if so, what's different about it?

For me, what I liked about theater was not really the approval (though that may have played into it) but the connection. It was a way of doing art that directly involved other people, that focused on relationships and explored the quality of them. You can be on stage with someone and those moments of pure human interaction are just exhilarating; even if you're playing characters there's a magic to bringing this fictional relationship to life. So it's not the approval of the other people involved that really mattered per se, but the opportunities for exploring human relationships, which is hard to do alone.

And I enjoy watching dance because of the physical relationship of bodies, so maybe some sense of that carries over to that medium as well?

I don't know... I feel like I probably could have gotten the same artistic charge from rehearsals as from performances (and something like Vanya on 42nd Street would indicate that I'm not really alone in that). The actual performance aspect of it was fun, but kind of secondary most of the time -- except that it added a level of intensity.

(On the other hand, I'm big ol' introvert, so I don't know that I'm really representative of most performers.)

That is an awesome questions, mgl.

I do think the urges are very different. In visual arts, I think the artist is moved to create something outside of themselves, whereas performance is more a process of changing oneself, somehow. I say this as someone with ZERO experience in the performing arts, but some in the visual ones.

Actually Mickey unfinished work is more expressive and evolved than his earlier work, because it's not his earlier work, and this broken thing is more akin to people who think depression and suicide are "romantic" and don't seem to notice The Bell Jar was at times a very funny book.

i couldn't nap because i kept thinking about mgl's last comment but now i'm just struggling not to go on about the things that bother me with this whole "myths we all ascribe to" thing and "the construction of the artist's self".

Gah, i really to catch this sleep, but i do have stuff to say, mgl, especially about how it depends on the nature of the project, whether it's a play or stand up or concert or performance piece, etc., the immediate gratification aspects and the feedback integral to the act, the melding of "art" and performance and performance art, as well as how technology has made whole new fields and possibilities in these areas--
but just trying to boil it down into an easy to understand choice of topics is a bit taxing right now.

Right now i'll say there is a range in the continuum of arts in how much external approval/attention matter and for varying reasons, and i hope to get back to this when i return to consciousness.

The broken thing is the 19th century myth of the romantic artist, revisited. Nobody during the Renaissance conceived of artists as tortured bohemian souls who had to dress funny and live poor - they were skilled craftspeople like any other guild members or artisans and paid accordingly. The whole idea of the artist as a wacko with creative urges that have to be expressed or he will, like, die, preferably in a garret, preferably of something lingering like TB or shocking like suicide or dueling or something else suitably dramatic is really a pretty new idea. You can also trace our 21st century fondness for ruins and Gothick decay to 19th century neogothicism, occurring around the same time. I have a theory that it all came of age during the Industrial Revolution when the newly affluent bourgeoisie decided that they didn't actually want to pay good money for handcrafted stuff and so the impoverished for her own good artist was invented and the romantic young bought it wholesale. Of course, I have a tendency to blame everything on the newly affluent bourgeoisie of the Industrial Revolution, there is that.

It is an excellent question mgl.

First, anything children get strokes for they will pursue for want of more strokes. Your teacher may have complimented your early artwork, and maybe chose some to be displayed in a place of honor at school. Mine praised my speaking and skit creating and dancing. So there’s that.

So I got interested young. As an introvert, performing was also a way to force people to look at me and pay attention to me. And I got more strokes for it. It would have been different if people didn’t respond.

It is definitely approval seeking behavior. And competitive. Something to Win. It’s also, as occhiblu says, a way into peak experiences with fellow performers and audience. It leads to sexy connections. It is also grueling. It can also wreak havoc on the already insecure bubble the impulse comes from because it’s you. Moreover, especially for a woman, it’s your body. (See Effed Up Ballerina Stories.) It feels like if they don’t like your work, they don’t like YOU. I mean, who else is it out there? Assuming you get the chance to do the work in the first place, and much of that has to do with how you look – something you have no control over. And if they do like your work, they like you, they really like you. Of course all this is false, but it feels true.

The only reason I have any sanity about it at all is because I learned to direct. And I've cast shows. And it really does have to do with how an actor looks and the quality they carry, things even the most well trained people have no control over, but it's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just the way it is.

I am relieved to not rely on it anymore for main income. Now, sometimes it’s fun, and sometimes it’s something I CAN do and get paid for. Usually a mix of both.

As far as whether need for attention/approval is a necessity for the performing arts: I'd say no. The performing arts a medium, and people who do them often do the same things even without an audience. For instance, I often sing and play songs all by myself and get a ton of satisfaction out of it. I even know some musicians who write songs and sell them, but who never perform or record the songs themselves - for many reasons, though their medium is an expressive art, they don't need the stage part. One woman writes awesome songs but just doesn't have that hot a voice; another actually has stage fright. Then there are the studio musicians who really enjoy backing up recordings but have no desire to be onstage themselves. I'm not sure how far this might extend into the theatrical arts, but I do know one guy who is a playwright who reads the plays out loud as he is writing them, pacing around to step into the different character's shoes - he doesn't normally perform in his own plays.

I think you have to work in the medium you're gifted for and drawn to, and public performance may or may not be a more or less common feature of that medium. Heck, even some visual artists really like to work in front of an audience. Filmmakers put their work before audiences without themselves being visible. It may be a little too easy to assume that everyone who does a performing ("lively") art also inherently loves and wants and needs the audience.

"The broken thing" (we should start a collective called that) comes from that as well as other obvious sources, but i still thing a lot of it is how some people want to simplify something that seems alien to them. Some people more openly and directly use elements of themselves in their work and some people just want to think they are able to read into other people's motivations and processes--
--there is just too much to say about it.

About performance, whether it's about craft or immediate gratification, i was thinking about how much of it involved other people and the necessary level of participation. There are arts that are very isolated and mostly take place in solitude, so when they involve other people, it's an aspect and level to the work that might not matter at all to some people depending on how much they have to be involved in it.
If what you do needs other people, whether it's as collaborators, helpers, elements, props, willing or unwitting audiences, etc., it's a different just because the act of creation is now in some part out of one person's control. It can be much like the other or an almost unrecognizable creature because of the relationships involved between you and people who vary in aspect from materials to co-conspirators.

Let's say improv. You could use things, or people, or things as people, but you need something outside yourself to bounce off.
Or something that is shaped its interaction with an audience, whether it is an extemporaneous piece or a machine that pounds a piece of metal into a shape depending on how many people look at it, and how long, and from what angle.

And all this is without going even close to the things rainbaby brought up, except i do want to get into the thing about strokes a little.
What if there was no praise or positive attention, and anything positive in any aspect of life was tempered with someone saying something like "They are just being nice and polite. They don't mean it."

i just deleted a long story about that that goes into too many other tangents and aspects so here's this:

When i was a little kid, i was forced to do things with absolutely no warning: you have to do this dance thing NOW, you have to play piano NOW, etc. i coped by turning off a part of my brain and doing what was asked without being very actively conscious of it. Being conscious and in the moment broke some kind of spell that let me do these tasks, like a little robot that glitches and shuts down.
To this day, i can occasionally do things when i'm in some zen state of nothing that come out of seeming nowhere and surprise everyone, especially me. There are all kinds of things trapped in the seeming nowhere that i have even less access to than did, but it does show how separate skills can be from anyone's awareness, even one's own conscious one.

If what you do needs other people, whether it's as collaborators, helpers, elements, props, willing or unwitting audiences, etc., it's a different just because the act of creation is now in some part out of one person's control.

My most memorable acting moments came from working with a fantabulously talented guy on a college production of Angels in America. We just had a short scene together, but *every* night was different -- we reacted off each other so well that even a slight change of intonation would completely shift the scene. The characters were arguing in the scene, and sometimes he would win, sometimes I would win. It was such a fucking tightrope-walking immense experience, to walk on stage and have no idea what was going to happen.

As a hugely in-control person, the only other places I can get that same feeling of immediacy and unknowing in relation to another person is sex and dancing -- and dancing only because I like to follow rather than lead.

Miko - There is a bit of a disconnect that comes from needing other people to get you in front of the audience you crave, and creating original music or visual art. I don't know of an actor who enjoys padding around the house reciting Shakespeare, but they may exist. You have to learn the audition piece, stress through the audition, THEN get to the part where you have a concrete project and walk around the house actually enjoying working lines.

I ran an improv troupe for years, and that, as you know, brings another set of stresses - getting yourself booked. My work began to suffer as I grew to resent the business work load.

It's a constant "pick me! pick me! pick me!" feeling followed by a "like me! like me! like me!" feeling. It's totally disturbing. But it is a rush to do it - I mean, who doesn't like sex and dancing.

I don't know of an actor who enjoys padding around the house reciting Shakespeare

I don't know, rainbaby - I think the urge to dramatically recite can come separately from the urge to get onstage and do it. Not everyone is drawn by the audience; some come at it the other way 'round. And of course, many people who love the sound of great writing being interpreted by their own voices may not ever get up the nerve to go through an audition, so you'd meet them less often by the time they're onstage.

I know a lot of writerly types like this, people who have a real gift for voice work but who just feel way too shy to get onstage. Still, they enjoy the sound of poetry.

Righto, Miko, that's what I'm saying - those people may be out there, but they aren't actors, because they don't have or need an audience.

Wowee, I'd give just about anything short of a body part to perform with you, Sassy. I hope you give 'em Hell.