Mixed Media

I’ve been debating whether or not to read Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. (Image credit: www.vulture.com) I have very little experience with plays and theatre. When a work of art is composed for a certain medium, is it best to first view it in that particular medium? For example, the original Harry Potter books were written to be read, and I think they are much stronger than their movie adaptations. Now, from what I understand the Cursed Child is simply the screenplay; it has not been “adapted” in the same sense, but it may be missing the nuances of live theatre. Again, I simply have no experience – and I should really talk to people who go to live theatre on a regular basis and ask for their opinions.

My preferred entertainment is that which is geared to the masses. I enjoy going to the movies, but only to watch blockbusters with explosions, great special effects, and/or epic landscape. I like to get my money’s worth for the sound and special effects. (I don’t own a large TV, or any TV for that matter.) I’m also happy to watch excellent movies that are not visual spectacles, but being cheap, I just wait for the DVDs to show up in the local library system.

I can’t help but make a comparison to higher education. With the massification of higher education aided by technology, is this akin to the movies? You get a superstar lecturer to launch a MOOC; the masses can watch the videos and do the “homework” online. All course work is homework, in a nonsynchronous fully online course. It’s relatively cheap to the consumer. You will need enough paying consumers to cover the costs of a slick production (and I’m sure there will be competition), not to mention turn a profit – or you will simply go out of business. There’s a reason why Udacity and Coursera are moving towards the corporate world, as mentioned in my last post. The business world is willing to pay.

On the other side are institutions continuing to sell their product (live experience with human instructors in an amenity-filled environment that provides live support). It’s private, name-branded, and gains you entry into the networked world of the elites. It is also expensive. The cream-of-the-crop in the elite category have no fear of massification. They have huge endowments for support, and there will always be folks willing to pay up. Non-elite privates will be caught in a struggle for survival; those with fewer resources and less prestige will be most hard-pressed. Notice that this says nothing about the quality of education provided; the flat world economics just kills you if you’re not already on a peak.

I find myself in the ironic position of being a staunch supporter of the small-classroom live experience when it comes to education, although I prefer the mass-produced movie to the intimate experience of live theatre. (Maybe it’s so I can keep my job.) Teaching and learning can be its best in a dialectical relationship. Socrates would agree; he thought dialogue was at the heart of gaining knowledge. In Phaedros, he is purported to say: “[Writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.” The reason we have this is thanks to Plato, who thankfully (in my opinion) wrote lots of things down!

Now education is not entertainment, although the lines have blurred considerably. Does the average student seek knowledge or entertainment when they come to class? (A better question might be whether anything else trumps getting a good grade so the student can move on in life, but that’s a whole different blog post.) Perhaps a bit of both. The best entertainment, in my opinion, tickles part of your brain. But to do that, one needs some background knowledge, the ability to appreciate the complex, and an eye for the subtle. Live theater, I am told, can provide such an experience if one actively engages attention in the performance. Maybe that’s why I have personally not found live theater compelling, I approached it simply as a passive viewer – and I could not pick up on the richness of expression. Perhaps it is simply a lack of experience. (I prefer action blockbuster movies, if I’m going to plunk down cash.)

Maybe, I would better appreciate the theatre if I knew the story beforehand, at least in broad strokes. Then I can immerse myself in the complexity, subtlety and uniqueness of the performance being communicated to me live in-person. I’d already know the basic plot, but I’m there to learn the richness that surrounds the bare factual information. Is that what college-level learning should be like? The students read beforehand, and are then treated to a rich presentation and discussion beyond the bare facts. Anecdotally, I know that students who read before they come to my class are much better to appreciate what happens in class (they tell me so, because it’s a revelation to them)! But not everyone does the preparation beforehand. This suggests that perhaps I should read Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, before I (eventually) go see the live performance.

P.S. Or one could have the students be the live theatre in a game.