Theater Production in the Liberal Arts—the Creative Campus

Dwight Watson
Professor of Theater, Wabash College

We need distance and space to fully comprehend our endeavors. Few can speak of this view with greater believability than the Apollo 9 astronauts. In his book, “The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution,” Frank White quotes astronaut Rusty Schweickart who had this to say about the Earth as he approached the moon:

so small and fragile . . . that you can block it out with our thumb and you realize that on that
small spot . . . is everything that means anything to you—all the history and music and poetry
and art . . . all of it on that little spot that you can cover with your thumb. And you realized from
that perspective that you’ve changed that there’s something new there, that the relationship is
no longer what it was.

I was awarded a faculty fellowship from the Wabash Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts during the spring semester of 2009. The fellowship gave me time to reflect on my discipline and the importance of theater in the liberal arts. Though lacking the vast perspective of the Apollo 9 astronauts, I did manage to get a glimpse of my discipline (with a fair amount of travel in cyberspace) as it rests within the College and the Wabash campus.

Though I had travelled some distance during the Center fellowship, including site visits to several college theater programs in Washington and Oregon, it was from a conference room on the third floor of Trippet Hall at the Wabash Center of Inquiry, perhaps only two hundreds yards from the center of the Wabash campus, where I began Like many other performing arts programs, the Wabash Theater Department, housed in the Fine Arts Center, is located on the campus periphery, much like our athletic facility. One reasonable argument for the decentralized location is the need to accommodate visitor parking for public events, again, like, athletics. A more skeptical view might suggest that there is an unspoken anxiety that an unpredictable art event may cause a community meltdown, and that theater activity is best contained along the margins. We know, for example, that Shakespeare’s Globe was built on the “wrong side of the Thames” in an area known as the Bankside. Populated with prostitutes and thieves, the Bankside is where audience members might exit an afternoon’s performance of Shakespeare’s As You Like It, and walk a very short distance to the Bear Garden to gamble on the bloodthirsty sport of bear or bull baiting.

If theater, historically, has been associated with “undesirables,” it has also long been regarded as a safe place for all types of people primed to express or listen to a wide range of social, political, religious, conforming and non-conforming ideas. Imaginably, these theater artists and patrons would have us worry less about location and buildings, or running the risk of being trite or truistic, and simply join forces with the melancholy Jaques in Shakespeare’s As You Like It, Jaques, the libertine turned philosopher, who, surrounded by outcasts, eccentrics, and exiles in the Forest of Arden, declares “All the world’s a stage.” I will ignore the remaining sentiments expressed by Jaques in his famous speech, those poignant ideas related to the ages of man, leading to a pointless life, in favor of a more opportunistic reading of the cliché. If all the world is a stage, then who is better prepared to manage the world, or, somewhat more modestly, a college or university creative campus initiative, than those trained in the theater?

Theater may rest in the margins, but its impulse is at the epicenter of an academic campus. Another discipline could make a similar claim, and there is common ground for many if not all disciplines, but theater is particularly well situated for stimulating conversation, innovation, and campus creativity. With its established practice in collaboration, storytelling and dramatic structure, and, perhaps, most importantly, its emphasis in stage production—the planning and implementing, the rendering and realization of a play on a stage before an audience—theater artists can and should lead the way for promoting creative campus programs.

Those involved in theater know that there are many aspects of production that cut across areas of study and human relations. We often regard play selection as the beginning of the production process, a process that concludes with a “strike” or the dismantling of scenery, releasing actors and other theater artists to pursue the next theatrical idea. Arguably, since the beginning of drama, theater artists have eagerly anticipated opening nights and the opportunity to exhibit well-crafted, rehearsed ideas to the public. Likewise, the last performance often excites theater artists to achieve their best as each stage moment moves to a final conclusion. The production process, from play selection to closing night and review, can be challenging, cathartic, life affirming.

The language of “production,” while embraced by theater departments, is rarely if ever associated with other disciplinary studies. Even in disciplines with experimental laboratories, those engaged in studies with clear beginning, middle and endpoints, the study of psychology or biology, for example, the language of “production” is rarely invoked. Why is this? Obviously, “production” is derived from the word “product” and few (and maybe only the theater) liberal arts disciplines are prepared or willing to suggest that their course of disciplinary study produces a “product.” After all, a “product” either sells or it does not; it has a long shelf life or it is quickly replaced by the next hot commodity. “Product” is the language of business, and the successful product is often controlled by market forces. Why would any academic, liberal arts program, unless forced to do so, align itself with the language of the market place and the vicissitudes associated with commerce, trade, or industry?

Many college and university theater programs depend on box office revenue to augment or sustain production budgets. Even departments that do not rely on box office receipts are vulnerable to unexpected changes in production budget allocations. Beginning with the early history of American theater on university campuses, from Harvard and William and Mary to the present, production programs have survived and even flourished on campus while providing a high level of intellectual engagement and community outreach. Though some might argue that the box office is precisely the mechanism needed to generate an audience and ensure production quality, it is an antiquated idea to expect college and university programs to act like a professional enterprise solely dependent on audience popularity. Regardless, out of necessity or impulse, theater has long adopted the language of production while boldly organizing the art form into a collaborative venture that may be consistent with types of organizational flowcharts or models associated with management or business.

While the reality of the commercial aspects of theater is present, the box office is not the essential quality that distinguishes theater from other academic disciplines. That distinction is its unapologetic embrace of contradictions (e.g., the actor is himself and he is a character), and its dedication to the transitory or ephemeral, qualities that may run counter to disciplines that may, for example, carve art out of stone, quantify results, or record observable truths. It takes a high degree of confidence or, maybe, it is arrogance, to build a discipline on transient qualities. As a result, the theater may not rank high among academic disciplines highlighted by institutional administrators eager to fortify their endowments, secure accreditation, or justify rising tuition. And yet, the strength of theater relies on its ability to bring creative people together to express and/or connect various ideas. In other words, theater is like a college.

The collaborative process practiced in theater departments offers a model of organization for campus organizers, faculty, staff and students, interested in joining the “Creative Campus” movement. Developed by various institutions, funding agencies, and educators, the “Creative Campus” explores and recognizes the potential of educational programs built on collaboration and interdisciplinarity. Though these programs may not rely on written drama, they are essentially non-matrix theater productions involving a theatrical impulse, partnership, public performance, and audience response.

Truthfully, I do not know if there really is a “Creative Campus” movement. Sociologist Steven Tepper, who has written extensively about the topic, asserts that “the creative campus is not just a fashionable alliteration.” He cites several universities and colleges engaged in Creative Campus activities, the hiring of professional staff, and the development of campus centers or institutes. Professor Tepper’s campus, Vanderbilt University, is a prime example with its Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy and its Creative Campus initiative that

seeks to place creativity at the center of campus life – integrating art, media, design and creative
expression into the curriculum; transforming campus spaces through public art and performance; connecting faculty and students across disciplines, with a special emphasis on the links between
artistic and scientific practice; and building community, both on and off campus, by using art and
creativity to animate conversations, reach across cultures, and bring people together around
heritage, public service and difficult dialogues.

Though the Curb’s Center mission statement is articulate, bold and exciting, it is also grounded in creative endeavors that have been practiced by college and university theater production programs for many years.

Similarly, the Carolina Creative Campus initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill “uses the arts to engage in campus and community wide conversation on a specific topic each academic year.” In 2007–08, the Carolina Creative Campus organized a yearlong, cross-campus dialogue on capital punishment, “Criminal/Justice: The Death Penalty Examined.” The program engaged visiting speakers and community leaders, involved various academic departments such as the School of Public Health and the School of Law, while highlighting more than twenty-five art events, including multiple theater activities and productions. This year, the Carolina Creative Campus is generating conversation on issues of gender and identity with “The Gender Project,” and next year the theme is “Global Diasporas.”

The Virginia B. Ball Center for Creative Inquiry at Ball State University offers fellowships to its faculty to develop seminars and projects with students to “explore the connections among the arts, humanities, science and technology.” In 2006, Jennifer Blackmer, Assistant Professor of Theater, was a recipient of one of these fellowships to support her seminar on the Human Genome Project. Professor Blackmer worked closely with students, while drawing on resources from the Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry, and expertise from colleagues in theater and technology, to developed The Human Faustus Project, a fully rendered theater production incorporating multimedia and animation.

In summary, the Creative Campus is a roundabout of energetic people drawn together to devise or express an idea of significance to their college community. Working with this basic idea, I organized a forum to discuss Theater Production in the Liberal Arts—the Creative Campus (see conference agenda). The forum took place on April 21–23, 2009 in Trippet Hall conference facility, involving twelve invited participants and several department colleagues. The participants were department leaders, successful in coordinating theater programs as well as “Creative Campus” program organizers. Additionally, the group represented a cross-section of theater scholars, designers, directors and playwrights, from both public and private large universities and small liberal arts colleges, from various parts of the country. The meeting was hosted by the Center of Inquiry staff. Wabash’s Dean of the College Gary Phillips, Director of Inquiries Charles Blaich, and Director of Operations Bill Doemel welcomed the participants to the Center. During the mini-conference, the participants met in roundtable discussions, and interacted with performance artist, educator, and administrator, Lynn Book, who is currently the Program Director for Creativity and Innovation, Office of Entrepreneurship and Liberal Arts, at Wake Forest University.

To help launch the conference, several of the participants were asked to share information related to Creative Campus activities on their home campuses. This session included reports from Dr. Mark Loccoco, Chair of the Loyola University Theater Department, and current Chair of the Theater in the Liberal Arts focus group of the American Theatre of Higher Education; Professor Dan Kotlowitz, Dartmouth College, whose recent work on a production of The Grapes of Wrath was connected to Dartmouth’s Class Divide Initiative; Associate Director Reed Colver of the Carolina Creative Campus program at the University of North Carolina; Dr. John Steven Paul, Lilly Fellows Program, Valparaiso University, who is instrumental in creating Soul Purpose, a touring liturgical drama troupe; and the previously mentioned Professor Jennifer Blackmer recalling her experience in developing The Human Faustus Project. These reports were followed by Professor Lynn Book’s keynote address on campus creativity and the place of creativity studies in college curriculums, the modeling of new approaches to broad-spectrum creativity, and the inherently interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship that must be examined as we work with students and institutions in the 21st century.

The second session included discussion of two articles by Dr. Steven J. Tepper: The Creative Campus: Who’s No. 1? and Taking the Measure of the Creative Campus. The articles were useful in outlining major issues related to the “Creative Campus.” Additionally, Dr. Charlie Blaich, Director of Inquiries at Wabash, discussed the Wabash National Study and the Creative Arts. Among the significant ideas in the Study related to student engagement and the arts, Dr. Blaich discussed students’ broad definition of teaching and learning that extends beyond typical student-faculty interactions and the conventional classroom setting.

The remaining conference sessions encouraged discussion of representative theater programs and the feasibility of collaborating with “Creative Campus” initiatives. Though the group was intrigued by the “Creative Campus” examples, and could easily articulate the benefits of working with students and colleagues on creative projects, the “Creative Campus” collaboration raised several significant questions:

• How do we manage the time to engage in interdisciplinary, creative campus activities when our faculty and staff are already over-extended or committed to departmental programs?
• The Creative Campus examples discussed earlier in conference function with varying degrees of financial and staff support (Both the Curb Center and the Carolina Creative Campus program received grants from Artists Presenters and Doris Duke Charitable Trust.), resources unavailable to most campuses. How do we develop Creative Campus programs without requisite funding?
• To what extent are we willing or able to allocate departmental staff and resources to a Creative Campus initiative?
• Is there room in our well-established theater production programs to engage in potentially less structured “Creative Campus” ventures?
• Are theater performance and productions standards compromised by working with other campus organizations inexperienced in production?
• When you consider that colleges and universities are intrinsically creative with many departments and opportunities for student learning and community outreach, isn’t a creative campus movement redundant?
• Accepting the vision necessary to coordinate a Creative Campus initiative, isn’t it best left to a Dean’s office? Isn’t that what Deans do?

“Where does creativity exist on your campus?” was, perhaps, the most challenging question put before the group. With a curious reserve, atypical of theater faculty, the question drifted in the group consciousness. In due course, Professor Kevin Dryer, Chair of the Theater Program at the University of Notre Dame, described the creative efforts of mechanical engineering students who had developed a robotic football game, mirroring some of the most honored football traditions of the Fighting Irish. Several other examples followed, highlighting inspired student projects that frequently took place outside the normal curricular boundaries, and often employed multiple disciplines or creative energies from various sources. Based on these examples, it is easy to imagine a pipeline of creativity flowing into our campuses with each new class of students and a reservoir of creativity waiting to be tapped.

One strategy for exploring a Creative Campus initiative might be to awaken or make use of what is already there. In other words, to take an inventory of innovative or imaginative activities on campus, and with some attention to planning and implementing, reach out to student and community organizations, departments and colleagues for a fuller expression or realization of these campus activities. In general, theater artists and educators have an intuitive and studied appreciation for the organization and execution of creative campus activities, and, if institutional support were forthcoming and theater faculty liberated to reconsider production parameters, many theater artists would be found in the center of Creative Campus activities. Or, as one conference participant observed, “Theater people tend to be articulate and open to new ideas.”

The Creative Campus movement is not without its critics. Some might argue that creativity is something that cannot be easily taught, assessed or measured and, therefore, best left to serendipity instead of design. The most skeptical might add that the Creative Campus movement is potentially an administrative device for collapsing programs, reducing faculty and staff, and saving money. These are valid, reasonable concerns, particularly when we pause to think about the effort, time, and energy invested into making our academic programs intellectually sound. Arguably, these concerns appear less troublesome to those who stop to consider the potential benefits of a Creative Campus initiative that has the capacity to unleash imagination and encourage inventive and resourceful campus engagement. As we support important programs such as writing across the disciplines, science literacy, or foreign language acquisition for our students, we should also recognize the need for creativity across the disciplines and campus. If we confine creativity to one area of the campus or another, we may ensure some depth of learning without an appreciation of the overview effect that creative thinking plays in our education and in our lives.

The mini-conference, with its focus on the Creative Campus, offered theater colleagues an opportunity to imagine the discipline from a slightly different viewpoint, and to avoid, as one colleague stated, “the hardening of the categories.” It served to remind us of our theater training in collaboration, of our role in affirming student artists and nurturing campus creativity, and of our belief in a shared community experience.

References

1. White, Frank. The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987; Reston, VA.
2. The Curb Center for Art, Enterprise & Public Policy. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. 2009. See: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/curbcenter/
3. Carolina Creative Campus. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 2009. See: http://www.carolinacreativecampus.org/
4. Virginia B. Ball Center for Creative Inquiry. Ball State University, Muncie, IN. 2009. See: http://bsu.edu/vbc/sem_20052006_sprg_blackmer.htm