Straw Man Awards
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, 10:43 pmGrant Malcolm14 posts in thread
Straw Man Awards
Thu, 30 Dec 2004, 10:43 pm"Do you think you have what it takes to be a Finley Adjudicator?"
So reads the bold question in a recent missive from the ITA committee seeking nominations for adjudicators. Not entirely sure what it takes to be an adjudicator these days, I read on. That was a mistake.
The ITA are looking for "committed, dedicated individuals". From the letter that's apparently all there is to being an adjudicator.
"No experience necessary."
No experience necessary? I can only hope this is an oblique reference to experience as an adjudicator. But I read on in vain for any indication that some theatrical experience was required or even likely to be considered.
Four dot points list the only other requirements provided in the missive. In a nutshell:
1) you can't direct or produce a play entered for the awards in 2005.
2) you are expected to see every entered production; approx. 40
3) no pay but some expenses
4) you must attend meetings every 6-8 weeks
Apparently no experience is necessary because these are the only things that really matter.
I argued in February that the adjudication process was running off the rails :
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3292&t=3283
Rather than choosing adjudicators based on their skills, experience, insights and the quality of their judgement we're apparently stuck with whoever is able to fit the narrow requirements listed above.
Personally I think we need to rename these to Straw Man Awards. The adjudication system has been turned inside out in order to counter "straw man" arguments that I'm not aware anyone has been seriously complaining about. E.g. too many adjudicators.
Finally, over the last 12 years of criticising the awards I've endeavoured to offer constructive suggestions. I've been disappointed at the lack of dialogue over the latest changes. Here's my latest offering anyway:
Ditch the adjudication altogether.
Embrace the popular vote.
Preserve the mystery.
Double the attendance at the Finley Awards overnight!
Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the night of the awards.
Give every person attending the awards a voting slip marked with the name of their club.
Every person attending can vote for any three productions. Two votes worth one point each and one vote worth five points that can only be assigned to a production at another company.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
So reads the bold question in a recent missive from the ITA committee seeking nominations for adjudicators. Not entirely sure what it takes to be an adjudicator these days, I read on. That was a mistake.
The ITA are looking for "committed, dedicated individuals". From the letter that's apparently all there is to being an adjudicator.
"No experience necessary."
No experience necessary? I can only hope this is an oblique reference to experience as an adjudicator. But I read on in vain for any indication that some theatrical experience was required or even likely to be considered.
Four dot points list the only other requirements provided in the missive. In a nutshell:
1) you can't direct or produce a play entered for the awards in 2005.
2) you are expected to see every entered production; approx. 40
3) no pay but some expenses
4) you must attend meetings every 6-8 weeks
Apparently no experience is necessary because these are the only things that really matter.
I argued in February that the adjudication process was running off the rails :
http://theatre.asn.au/read.php?f=18&i=3292&t=3283
Rather than choosing adjudicators based on their skills, experience, insights and the quality of their judgement we're apparently stuck with whoever is able to fit the narrow requirements listed above.
Personally I think we need to rename these to Straw Man Awards. The adjudication system has been turned inside out in order to counter "straw man" arguments that I'm not aware anyone has been seriously complaining about. E.g. too many adjudicators.
Finally, over the last 12 years of criticising the awards I've endeavoured to offer constructive suggestions. I've been disappointed at the lack of dialogue over the latest changes. Here's my latest offering anyway:
Ditch the adjudication altogether.
Embrace the popular vote.
Preserve the mystery.
Double the attendance at the Finley Awards overnight!
Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the night of the awards.
Give every person attending the awards a voting slip marked with the name of their club.
Every person attending can vote for any three productions. Two votes worth one point each and one vote worth five points that can only be assigned to a production at another company.
Cheers
Grant
[%sig%]
Re: I'll Huff and I'll Puff...
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, 01:02 pmG'day, esteemed arguers.
A couple of points I think are worth bringing up:
>> "No experience necessary."
If a job advertises ‘no experience necessary’, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to employ half-wits or incompetents. It usually means there will be on-the-job training…and also the candidates with the most experience will still get offered the post.
In the case of The Finlays, they have opened the field as to who can apply, but not necessarily as to who they select...I daresay the successful candidates will have plenty of relevant experience.
I have been put in an adjudicating position as someone who supposedly has experience, and yet many of my decisions still end up being matters of personal choice. How much 'training' or experience does it take to exercise personal preference? If you opened the voting up to the audience, that's pretty much what it would be anyway.
>> Embrace the popular vote.
>> Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the night of the awards.
One, this presents the mirror image of the problem of a judge not being able to attend the performances. It means only those who can attend the Finlays on the night can have a say. Most performance seasons give the judges a number of opportunities to see each show. Limiting it to a single night seems to be the opposite of what you are arguing for, Grant!
Two, the 'popular' vote could merely turn out to be the most 'populous' vote. Large cast productions will have advantages over small ones, larger clubs over smaller ones, local over out-of-town...depending on who they can get to rally for their support. Many people will arrive with a pre-determined idea of who they will vote for, regardless of the quality of the competition.
Three, a huge proportion of the audience will not only belong to a particular club, but will be cast/crew members of nominated productions. You won't allow a director at a club to be an adjudicator.... Are you going to have to not allow directors, actors, and crew to be in the audience?
And four, if all the awards are based upon what you see on the night, it turns into an audition. You can't assume that the audience in attendance has seen all of the previous nominations in production. Wouldn't any system of judging therefore have to come down to the extracts you can see on the night? Who wants their play to be judged this way? How would you determine a 'best newcomer' or 'best supporting' under these circumstances? Unless the evening becomes a VERY long marathon!
My view is: the previous system seemed to cop a lot of flak. So they changed it. We don't know yet whether this system will satisfy everyone, but it's probably premature to judge until it happens. Be a good idea to give it a go, and judge it AFTER it performs, no?
Cheers,
Craig
A couple of points I think are worth bringing up:
>> "No experience necessary."
If a job advertises ‘no experience necessary’, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to employ half-wits or incompetents. It usually means there will be on-the-job training…and also the candidates with the most experience will still get offered the post.
In the case of The Finlays, they have opened the field as to who can apply, but not necessarily as to who they select...I daresay the successful candidates will have plenty of relevant experience.
I have been put in an adjudicating position as someone who supposedly has experience, and yet many of my decisions still end up being matters of personal choice. How much 'training' or experience does it take to exercise personal preference? If you opened the voting up to the audience, that's pretty much what it would be anyway.
>> Embrace the popular vote.
>> Have the Finley Award audience decide the winners on the night of the awards.
One, this presents the mirror image of the problem of a judge not being able to attend the performances. It means only those who can attend the Finlays on the night can have a say. Most performance seasons give the judges a number of opportunities to see each show. Limiting it to a single night seems to be the opposite of what you are arguing for, Grant!
Two, the 'popular' vote could merely turn out to be the most 'populous' vote. Large cast productions will have advantages over small ones, larger clubs over smaller ones, local over out-of-town...depending on who they can get to rally for their support. Many people will arrive with a pre-determined idea of who they will vote for, regardless of the quality of the competition.
Three, a huge proportion of the audience will not only belong to a particular club, but will be cast/crew members of nominated productions. You won't allow a director at a club to be an adjudicator.... Are you going to have to not allow directors, actors, and crew to be in the audience?
And four, if all the awards are based upon what you see on the night, it turns into an audition. You can't assume that the audience in attendance has seen all of the previous nominations in production. Wouldn't any system of judging therefore have to come down to the extracts you can see on the night? Who wants their play to be judged this way? How would you determine a 'best newcomer' or 'best supporting' under these circumstances? Unless the evening becomes a VERY long marathon!
My view is: the previous system seemed to cop a lot of flak. So they changed it. We don't know yet whether this system will satisfy everyone, but it's probably premature to judge until it happens. Be a good idea to give it a go, and judge it AFTER it performs, no?
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···