QUALITY (or how to assess and evaluate improvisation work)
“Quality” is a highly loaded, often misused and therefore problematic word. On the other hand, it seems to be one of the most accessible words we have in common usage to describe whether something is ‘worth our time’.
Whether something is ‘worth our time’ is of course highly subjective. Yet again, in the context of practical, hands-on situations, a group of people can often enough agree rather quickly what constitutes worthwhile interactions and what not.
So what can be said about ‘quality’ in improvisation work, without making the mistake to talk about our tastes (in for example aesthetics or performance styles)? Which aspects of improvisation work make this discipline ‘worth our while’, and along which parameters could we assess their value?
Is it possible to invent ways to evaluate improvisation processes in such a way that it is not judging the ‘aesthetics’ used, but rather that it simply deepens our understanding of such processes and what is needed to make them ‘work’?
(For example, if the type of improvisation events that someone creates are not my cup of tea, I can still relate to the underlying improvisation principles and get inspired by the particular strategies that make these kinds of moments possible.)
So, fully conscious about the fact that this is not an easy subject, let us gather – for example – which kind of strategies improvisation practitioners use to ensure ‘quality’ in their work.
Or maybe you want to suggest a completely different way of treating this subject (under a different term than ‘quality’)? 🙂
Please react, add, etc..!