Open Forum

So I hope many of you are finding yourself thinking about the new national standards that are under review.  I know I have a million and one things going on with a fall production, lesson planning, and of course other non-theatre school obligations.  I would think many of you are in similar positions.  Yet we still find time to complete a review of the national standards.  I think we all find this time because we see the importance that these standards will play, not only in our classroom, but for the advocacy of the arts in general.

This brings me to my current question.  Over the last two weeks (well in reality much longer, but now I feel the pressure to craft my opinion) I find myself questioning the idea of connecting being its own artistic process.  I clearly see where the writers are coming from in drawing it out; however, I see the standards more accurately falling into the areas of creating and responding (also performing in some ways).  I wonder if connecting should just be a process component of the other three areas.  I think that we are always connecting during our process as artists.  We connect while we are creating.  We connect while we are performing.  We certainly connect while we are responding.  

Of course this brings me to an issue I have been having while curriculum writing over the years.  I find myself wanting to visually represent the organic nature of our work in some way that is not a liner structure.  This is almost impossible in most models in use today.  We rarely create in isolation from perform or respond.  The same is true for other combinations.  So then the question becomes, why would I not keep connecting separate.  Creating is separate from performing even though we have to create something before we perform it.  

Then back to the other side of the issue, I sometimes think that there is value in being in line with the music and visual arts folks.  This could be a strong national statement about arts.  I do not mean to suggest that we are all completely the same, because we each have unique differences.  However, I feel it is important to note the similarities about what makes us all artists.  Now, maybe I am reading into this too much and it is perfectly fine for some areas to have three artistic processes and others to have four.  As you can see I am still going back and forth about this.

My hope for this post was twofold.  First, I wanted to verbalize some of my thoughts in the hope that it will help me grapple with the issue.  Second, I wanted to see how other professionals are reacting to this.  Do you think that the connecting standards are correctly place in their own process component?  Do you think it would be stronger to mix them into the other three?  I can't wait to read people's thoughts about this as we all work on submitting our review of the national standards for high school.      

So I hope many of you are finding yourself thinking about the new national standards that are under review.  I know I have a million and one things going on with a fall production, lesson planning, and of course other non-theatre school obligations.  I would think many of you are in similar positions.  Yet we still find time to complete a review of the national standards.  I think we all find this time because we see the importance that these standards will play, not only in our classroom, but for the advocacy of the arts in general.

This brings me to my current question.  Over the last two weeks (well in reality much longer, but now I feel the pressure to craft my opinion) I find myself questioning the idea of connecting being its own artistic process.  I clearly see where the writers are coming from in drawing it out; however, I see the standards more accurately falling into the areas of creating and responding (also performing in some ways).  I wonder if connecting should just be a process component of the other three areas.  I think that we are always connecting during our process as artists.  We connect while we are creating.  We connect while we are performing.  We certainly connect while we are responding.  

Of course this brings me to an issue I have been having while curriculum writing over the years.  I find myself wanting to visually represent the organic nature of our work in some way that is not a liner structure.  This is almost impossible in most models in use today.  We rarely create in isolation from perform or respond.  The same is true for other combinations.  So then the question becomes, why would I not keep connecting separate.  Creating is separate from performing even though we have to create something before we perform it.  

Then back to the other side of the issue, I sometimes think that there is value in being in line with the music and visual arts folks.  This could be a strong national statement about arts.  I do not mean to suggest that we are all completely the same, because we each have unique differences.  However, I feel it is important to note the similarities about what makes us all artists.  Now, maybe I am reading into this too much and it is perfectly fine for some areas to have three artistic processes and others to have four.  As you can see I am still going back and forth about this.

My hope for this post was twofold.  First, I wanted to verbalize some of my thoughts in the hope that it will help me grapple with the issue.  Second, I wanted to see how other professionals are reacting to this.  Do you think that the connecting standards are correctly place in their own process component?  Do you think it would be stronger to mix them into the other three?  I can't wait to read people's thoughts about this as we all work on submitting our review of the national standards for high school.      

So I hope many of you are finding yourself thinking about the new national standards that are under review.  I know I have a million and one things going on with a fall production, lesson planning, and of course other non-theatre school obligations.  I would think many of you are in similar positions.  Yet we still find time to complete a review of the national standards.  I think we all find this time because we see the importance that these standards will play, not only in our classroom, but for the advocacy of the arts in general.

This brings me to my current question.  Over the last two weeks (well in reality much longer, but now I feel the pressure to craft my opinion) I find myself questioning the idea of connecting being its own artistic process.  I clearly see where the writers are coming from in drawing it out; however, I see the standards more accurately falling into the areas of creating and responding (also performing in some ways).  I wonder if connecting should just be a process component of the other three areas.  I think that we are always connecting during our process as artists.  We connect while we are creating.  We connect while we are performing.  We certainly connect while we are responding.  

Of course this brings me to an issue I have been having while curriculum writing over the years.  I find myself wanting to visually represent the organic nature of our work in some way that is not a liner structure.  This is almost impossible in most models in use today.  We rarely create in isolation from perform or respond.  The same is true for other combinations.  So then the question becomes, why would I not keep connecting separate.  Creating is separate from performing even though we have to create something before we perform it.  

Then back to the other side of the issue, I sometimes think that there is value in being in line with the music and visual arts folks.  This could be a strong national statement about arts.  I do not mean to suggest that we are all completely the same, because we each have unique differences.  However, I feel it is important to note the similarities about what makes us all artists.  Now, maybe I am reading into this too much and it is perfectly fine for some areas to have three artistic processes and others to have four.  As you can see I am still going back and forth about this.

My hope for this post was twofold.  First, I wanted to verbalize some of my thoughts in the hope that it will help me grapple with the issue.  Second, I wanted to see how other professionals are reacting to this.  Do you think that the connecting standards are correctly place in their own process component?  Do you think it would be stronger to mix them into the other three?  I can't wait to read people's thoughts about this as we all work on submitting our review of the national standards for high school.      

So I hope many of you are finding yourself thinking about the new national standards that are under review.  I know I have a million and one things going on with a fall production, lesson planning, and of course other non-theatre school obligations.  I would think many of you are in similar positions.  Yet we still find time to complete a review of the national standards.  I think we all find this time because we see the importance that these standards will play, not only in our classroom, but for the advocacy of the arts in general.

This brings me to my current question.  Over the last two weeks (well in reality much longer, but now I feel the pressure to craft my opinion) I find myself questioning the idea of connecting being its own artistic process.  I clearly see where the writers are coming from in drawing it out; however, I see the standards more accurately falling into the areas of creating and responding (also performing in some ways).  I wonder if connecting should just be a process component of the other three areas.  I think that we are always connecting during our process as artists.  We connect while we are creating.  We connect while we are performing.  We certainly connect while we are responding.  

Of course this brings me to an issue I have been having while curriculum writing over the years.  I find myself wanting to visually represent the organic nature of our work in some way that is not a liner structure.  This is almost impossible in most models in use today.  We rarely create in isolation from perform or respond.  The same is true for other combinations.  So then the question becomes, why would I not keep connecting separate.  Creating is separate from performing even though we have to create something before we perform it.  

Then back to the other side of the issue, I sometimes think that there is value in being in line with the music and visual arts folks.  This could be a strong national statement about arts.  I do not mean to suggest that we are all completely the same, because we each have unique differences.  However, I feel it is important to note the similarities about what makes us all artists.  Now, maybe I am reading into this too much and it is perfectly fine for some areas to have three artistic processes and others to have four.  As you can see I am still going back and forth about this.

My hope for this post was twofold.  First, I wanted to verbalize some of my thoughts in the hope that it will help me grapple with the issue.  Second, I wanted to see how other professionals are reacting to this.  Do you think that the connecting standards are correctly place in their own process component?  Do you think it would be stronger to mix them into the other three?  I can't wait to read people's thoughts about this as we all work on submitting our review of the national standards for high school.