Glittering Audiences: day 2


Lucinda Holloway, star of Glitter Knickers at the Rondo Theatre

Glitter Knickers is proving (on the evidence of two nights) to be something people like! We had another smashing audience, with a very large “on the door” queue. I hope you’ll indulge my sharing some feedback – and if it inspires you to come, that would be wonderful – just tonight & Saturday (4/5 March) left! Book here.

“Bloody amazing”

“Hilarious, beautifully observed, artfully written. Go.”

“Go and see Glitter Knickers: it’s brilliant!!”

“Great night out. Very, very funny show.”

“Blown away! Funny real clever moving.”

“A tour de force in writing & performance -catch it.”

“Hugely enjoyed Glitter Knickers:  great script, perfect casting and laugh out loud funny.”

“It really is fantastic and will resonate with women everywhere. Made me laugh continuously.”

“You are a consummate storyteller Gill and this play is a romp through the imagination and Lucinda created such visual imagery. It was a joy! Huge congratulations to all involved. Thank you for a great night at the theatre.”

The Audience’s Glitter Knickers

Wonderful opening night last night (2 March) – thanks hugely to all who came (feel free to come again, of course!). If you haven’t yet booked and want to come, I strongly recommend you click this “Book Now” link. But in the meantime, here’s a few choice quotes from last night’s fantastic audience:
“…the fantastic Glitter Knickers – it’s very funny, slightly bonkers and utterly sweary!”
“Loved it! Funny, astute, painful & crammed full of face-achingly good one-liners!”
“What a show! Bravo to everyone!”
“Fab show – we LOVED it!”
“I loved it. Trippy & brain-bendy.”
Thanks again, and I hope we’ll see you at the Rondo Theatre Thu/Fri or Sat!
gk TA DA

What Dali can, Su-bo can’t? Artist / audience gap

An artist works, gives their sweat and soul to communicate something in a form that is somehow different to the everyday-expected. The audience engages, pays, comes, listens, studies. Different activities. If these two then disagree on the art, whose opinion matters more? Which one defines the “art”?

When there’s a jarring chasm between what an artist aims to communicate and what the audience receives,  it’s either the “wrong” audience (in time, space, culture or other demographic) or it will never get one. The bigger that gap (disagreement), the harder the personal hit (unless you made no effort and are now being hailed as a genius, in which case, this blog comes with a price; please email me.) And the harder the hit, the bigger the questions for the artist. …Perhaps, the bigger the solution.

This is an interesting space: the gap between art(ist) and audience has to be subjective interpretation, an individual’s reaction; their experience. It might be laughter, joy, confusion, boredom, anger, frustration.

But there is something in this subjectivity about the wrapping that the audience’s experience comes in: a trendy gallery v a church hall; an 85-year old past-master v a 25-year old wag; a £50 ticket or three-for-a-fiver. Dali is permitted where Susan Boyle would not be allowed to do precisely the same thing; Shakespeare gets away with a lot, because he is trusted to make it good, if not in this piece, then in Hamlet/Lear/Tempest. Many a writer feels Waiting for Godot wouldn’t get past a literary manager these days. It might be true; it might not.

So is art about intent or reception? The transmission or what is heard, experienced? This is the home of great potential pretentiousness, where people get cross about “I know what I like,” and “I don’t understand art,” vs. “they just don’t get it.”

Isn’t it clear that if “they don’t get it” then you’ve singularly failed to communicate? Art can’t exist in a vacuum; it must have reaction to have meaning: it must have an audience – hopefully, the “right” audience. And if that means donning a mad moustache or charging £50 to make your art be valued, is that justified, or is it just a case of new togs for the Emperor….?