|
Brian Rogers is the co-founder and Artistic Director of the The Chocolate Factory Theater. A theater director and video artist, Brian’s recent works include “Fundamental,” “Audit” and “Gun Play.” He is currently collaborating with playwright Ken Urban on a new multimedia meditation on wives and death entitled “2 Husbands,” which will premiere at The Chocolate Factory in spring 2007. Brian is also creating video for “Game Face,” a collaboration with performer/choreographer Tara O’Con.
|
 |
The Chocolate Factory Theater – Mandy Morrison
Brian Rogers is the co-founder and Artistic Director of the The Chocolate Factory Theater. A theater director and video artist, Brian’s recent works include “Fundamental,” “Audit” and “Gun Play.” He is currently collaborating with playwright Ken Urban on a new multimedia meditation on wives and death entitled “2 Husbands,” which will premiere at The Chocolate Factory in spring 2007. Brian is also creating video for “Game Face,” a collaboration with performer/choreographer Tara O’Con.
Mandy Morrison: Identify the most problematic aspect of creating performances aside from the issues of funding.
Brian Rogers: Outside of larger institutions, technical equipment and expertise are minimal. Artists tend not to cultivate these resources for themselves—they can’t afford the expense and the expectation of support is assumed, making the experience of putting on the work more difficult.
MM: What are you interested in accomplishing by putting on performances for a) the artist and b) the public?
BR: When I’m choosing artists, I am always looking in the mirror thematically and in terms of aesthetics. I want to challenge myself. I’m also trying to build a community that is diverse. My primary consideration is to find a way for the work to happen which benefits my organization, community and the artists.
MM: In your experience, have you noticed audiences changing in the past 10-20 years; are they more or less receptive to what you are presenting?
BR: I feel a nostalgia for something that doesn’t exist much anymore (ten years ago). There used to be places downtown where pretty much anything happened. And, there wasn’t much pressure attached to it in terms of the funding or press. People in large numbers [went]. There’s less of that now. [That] energy, which was directed toward experimental theater and dance, is now moving back into rock clubs and cabarets.
MM: Have you noticed a change in the artists vis a vis their practice and/or attitudes toward their practice and their audiences.
BR: There is less of an emphasis on gigs at big institutions, because there are fewer of those to go around. To my mind, that’s good, because it leads artists back to the basic question of what they are trying to do, why and for whom. They can put together performances that suit their own sensibilities and address these questions in a way that works for them. That’s been my motivation for having my own venue and for supporting other artists.
MM: How could things be improved, or is that a non-starter question/ issue?
BR: Everything I do is about making things happen despite obstacles.
MM: What are some of the things that arts organizations andfunders/sponsors are doing that are helpful; what is detrimental?
BR: Funding has changed dramatically in the last few years. Large funders, who have supported performing arts, have moved their focus to big institutions (who then conduit this money to artists on their roster) and away from independently producing artists and emerging organizations such as mine. Because I am working on a different scale with a different model, that’s difficult. We’ve raised more money these last couple of years, but it’s an enormous undertaking.
MM: If provocative work is more likely to alienate than to engage its audience, is it in the hosts’ or the organization’s best interest to provide that artist or group with a venue? Why or why not? Is it worth doing?
BR: [Much of what] I present would be considered challenging to [some]. I know that there is an audience (albeit not huge) who will draw something positive from it, the tricky thing is finding them. We are small, and most of the time it’s not difficult to fill our seats in drawing from the community that surrounds certain kinds of work. But that tends to be insular, which I hate. We are rooted in western Queens, which has had very limited exposure to anything remotely experimental. Because community is important to us and supports us (financially and in other ways), we want to get as many of them in here as possible.
MM: What has been your most gratifying presentation as a host organization and why?
BR: I am continually gratified by the range of artists who have worked with us, and by the feeling of community that has been built in the last few years. One of my goals in starting this was to overcome my feeling of isolation, and that’s been accomplished.
MM: What do you think is important for artists to consider in creating site-specific as opposed to proscenium work?
BR: I think it’s important for artists to consider the space they’re working in, in terms of the experience they want an audience to have, which is difficult in a fixed proscenium space. The point is to run a space that is unique and industrial—not just a "theater.”
MM: Given the current political climate in the US, do you feel that a personal aesthetic in the performance realm diminishes the larger issues that we in Western culture collectively face, or can it enhance these issues?
BR: If you have something to say about a larger issue, and it’s not conveyed through your own unique perspective—you’re not authentic. It’s important to create experiences that are universal in the sense that people from different backgrounds [can] share them, but denying one’s own unique voice is tantamount to pandering. I am drawn to work that is deeply personal, even if what is personal is veiled or oblique.
