Theater Terroir: Applying an Agricultural Model to Theater Making

A few months ago, in response to the cancellation of the Shakespeare in the Park program, I became obsessed with cultivating a model for my theater group that would work.  Initially spurred by Ken Robinson's TED talk  I wondered if I ought to find an agricultural model to apply to making theater.

This was happening around October and November, while the Sierra Foothills bustled with harvest festivals featuring locally grown produce and wine.  I do love wine.  There is something very special about the wine region in my neighboring counties.  Though largely lacking  in infrastructure to support tourists (which could be viewed as part of its charm) the region is peppered with Mom and Pop vineyards who welcome tasters with the small town hospitality that one only expects to see in fiction.

Inspired by the attitude of these area wineries, I decided to learn a little more about making wine.  I read an excellent book, Passion on the Vine by Sergio Esposito, and began to think about the lessons the book preached about winemaking in terms of making theater.  What resulted was a vision statement for another theater model.  Since this blog is all about setting ideas free, I'd like to share my idea with you.

Theater Terroir Vision Statement

Imagine a theater that creates its art in the same way the greatest vintners create their wine; a theater so ingrained in its community that the sense of the place in which it is cultivated becomes reflected in the character and structure of its art.  This is the embodiment of Community Theater---one that, like wine, must produce its plays in a way that best reflects its own terroir.

Terroir is a French loanword with no exact English translation but has often been defined as “a sense of place.”  Aspects that define a wine’s terroir include the topography, climate, soil type and the neighboring plants that grow in and around the vine plots.  When we think of applying the concepts of terroir to our theater company, we must consider them both literally and metaphorically:

Topography

When producing local theater, the topography of the land dictates the spaces and backdrops in which the theater grows, develops, matures and (finally) produces its plays.  Our theater’s topography includes Johnson-Springview Park, where we have rehearsed and produced works of Shakespeare for the past 5 years.  However, the geographic space that nurtures our art spreads farther and deeper into the community. 

Our topography includes those places where our artists interact with our audiences without distinguishing themselves in these roles.  These are the places that provide the issues and events we can draw upon to create our art, like the soil where the grapevine draws its nutrients.  Some places will not be as easy to thrive in as others, but it is said that some of the best grapes are produced in the rockiest topography.  This is a fact to keep in mind if ever we are faced with hardships in producing our local theater.

Climate

To truly understand the concept of climate in creating local theater we must evaluate its human factors.  When developing our plays, we must be alert to the present political, social and economic climates in our region.  To capture the theater’s terroir, each vintage (or play) must be relevant and applicable to the current climates.  Our plays will work to stimulate discussion, provide opportunities for dialogue and nurture understanding of different viewpoints within our community.  If done successfully, we expect that the vintages left to age on the shelf for a few years will provide a taste of our cultural history when sipped by future readers.

Soil Type

Though the art of theatermaking typically does not include interacting with the soil itself, we appreciate “soil type” as a metaphor for our local history.  As luck would have it, a great deal of Rocklin’s history is inexorably linked to what lies in the soil beneath our feet.  The same can be said for the history of the rest of the region, which was often nicknamed “Gold Country.”  To dig in our roots and keep in touch with the soil that is our history, we plan to release one historical play each year.  Consider it like one of our grape varieties indigenous to the region.  We hope that this goal will build lasting partnerships with our local museums, educators and historical societies.

Neighboring Plants

Finally, to embrace our terroir we must not be blind to the neighboring artists and cultural organizations that pepper our region.  One famous winemaker laid out his winery like a botanical garden: including other types of fruits and plants so that “the vines could have friends.”  If we are to produce our theater organically, we must also be open to cooperative partnerships with the other beneficial organizations in our area.  Living in the same place with the shared goal of improving it makes for supportive friendships and results in great collaborative creation.

With these principles of terroir in mind, we hope to become great community theatermakers.  Our goal is to produce unique plays that reflect the cultural character of our community and to enrich that cultural experience by stimulating discussion, dialogue and different viewpoints about the area in which we live.

---

Later, I was led to the brilliant work of Diane Ragsdale and read her arguments for a Slow Food Movement as applied to the arts in her speech, The Excellence Barrier.  For others interested in devising a theater model that is more agricultural than industrial, I highly recommend you read this.

Thoughts? Ideas? Questions?  You are always welcome to contribute to this blog by adding to the comments section!

Photo of vineyards provided by http://www.sierrawineries.com

Theater and the Big "Why."

Before I begin, I’d like to start by recommending a series on Scott Walters' Theatre Ideas blog titled “Advice to a Theatre Major.”  In his posts Walters gives great advice, specifically with his emphasis on the importance of finding one’s raison d’être, or as he put it, one’s “why.”  As a former theater major, this got me thinking. 

Without diving into too much detail about my fundamental beliefs with regard to morality, ethics, politics, etc. I’d like to put my “why” into words as best I can because it also happens to be the “why” for Rocklin Shakespeare.   I wrote in my first blog that Rocklin Shakes was formed in order to “create a fun and secure space in which artists and actors could experiment with their craft, to stimulate collaboration through the support of a cohesive ensemble of players and to bring the fruit of our labors to the widest audience available by offering free admission.” 

These are all “whats” and “hows” but do not illustrate the fundamental reason as to why a group of people joined the program and donated thousands of unpaid hours as well as money from their own pockets to bring it to fruition five years in a row.  It does not explain why thousands of people (including strangers from 100 miles away) came to the performances night after night and left with huge smiles on their faces, or why children got so excited for the program that they arrived dressed like characters from the play, or why community members continue to recognize the actors at coffee shops and grocery stores and go out of their way to tell them how much they enjoyed their performances.

The why is about inclusion, about unity; it’s a fundamental belief that we can identify ourselves by the fact that we are human and can unite because of our sameness rather than divide because of our superficial differences.  We’re not trying to sell anyone anything, we just want to identify with and connect to the people with which we live.

A “why” is terribly difficult to put into words because it comes from the limbic part of the brain, not the language controlling neo-cortex.  Theater has the power to speak very clearly to the limbic part of the brain---the part that controls emotions---but people have to go experience it for themselves.  I would have a hard time approaching a stranger and trying to sell them my belief system without them having attended one of my shows.  Heck, I had a really difficult time explaining the belief system to my own actors before they began rehearsals and were able to absorb it through their experiences.  Last year, prior to the first rehearsal with a new cast, I actually tried to put the “why” of Rocklin Shakespeare into a rhyming little cheer:

“The reason that we are here

Is so much more than Will Shakespeare:

We’re inclusive not exclusive,

Positive not negative,

Supportive, creative, constructive the-A-ter!”

I believe the cheer was largely ineffective in converting new actors to Rocklin Shakespeare’s “why” because they didn’t need converting: they’d already shown up.  Also, as anyone who has pretended not to be home after spotting missionaries walking up their sidewalk knows: proselytizing as a means of conversion is mostly met with defensiveness and rejection.   Another reason why the cheer was ineffective is that it was still fixated on the “what” of our program, something that was already obvious to the participants.

So to take from Simon Sinek’s “Golden Circle” phrasing:

Why:  We want to identify with and connect to the people with which we live on a human level.

How:  We create fun and secure spaces to stimulate inclusive, creative collaboration within our community.

What: We also produce great theater. 

Want to come to our next show?

Above photo from Rocklin Shakespeare's 2010 production of a Midsummer Night's Dream.  Heather Smith, as Snout, portrays Wall.

Improving the “Typical" Theater Experience: Part Two - ACTORS!

In my last post, I discussed the problems I have had with what I call the  “typical” theater experience for audience members.  A possible way to improve upon the audience's experience, I suggested, was to establish opportunities for audience members who want to be more involved with the artistic process.  I discussed the possibility of multiple levels of active engagement and spent some time on Microsoft Paint making an illustration.  It was very long.  It had many links.

Part two will not.  

In all honesty, the audience experience is not one I am privy to very often, so I tried my best to fill my inexperience with a lot of research.  Where I hope to shine in clarity and brevity now is with an explanation of the typical theater experience as it applies to a group with which I am far more familiar: the actors.  This one comes more from the heart.

First a refresher from the last post:

If we are discussing most theater as we know it today, you will be sitting in a dark room and required to be mostly passive and silent.  Perhaps the show will be entertaining and you will feel a sense of camaraderie with others in the audience who are laughing along with you during the performance, but when the lights go up, then what?  Maybe you’ll be able to applaud and talk to a few actors who will politely nod before moving on to their friends and family, but you will likely leave the building with a head full of thoughts and opinions and no where to put them.

  

The end of a show can be equally alienating for actors.  After five or more* weeks of rehearsals and a few weeks of performances, what is usually a very intimate and emotional experience for a cast comes to an abrupt end.  I’ve called the resulting sensation “an artist’s postpartum depression” because the amount of emotional and physical dedication required for the creation of a show can be jokingly compared to having a baby.  The sense of disorientation and loss at one’s shifting identity after a show has ended is a real thing---I’ve experienced it to some degree with every show in which I’ve acted and directed.

If my advice for a more involved audience is implemented and they get the opportunities to invest their time and creativity into a production, it is quite likely that they’ll also experience this sense of loss when the run of a show comes to an end.  How they would cope with this sense of loss is a bit of an unknown to me, but I can speak from experience and observation about the way actors deal.

The actor’s answer to their artistic postpartum depression is to bury him or herself in a new show as quickly as possible.   I find this coping device analogous with rebound dating: sure you’ve got a new show on which to enjoy working, but it will not be able to achieve the depth of your connection to the previous show.   What’s worse, the residual feelings you harbor for that previous show could be impairing your ability to fully commit to your new role.  Soon you’ll find yourself drunkenly texting the former show about how much you miss it… well perhaps not, but you get my point.

To avoid “rebounding” with the next show, I believe theaters must figure out a way for their actors (and all show participants at risk of the artistic postpartum blues) to obtain a sense of closure at the conclusion of the run.  Note: a Bacchus-themed cast party does not accomplish this goal for more than 24 hours.

So what is the solution?  Where are my links telling you about theaters x and y with their hip techniques for helping their actors cope with the end of the run?

Thus far I haven’t found any.  Somewhat abashedly, I admit that prior to writing this I just accepted my artistic postpartum depression as a normal course of events in the pattern of making theater.  But now, in this blog, I wish to ask “what if.”

What if a theater could incorporate, into the period of a season, a special post-show performance for the participants?  Perhaps this could be a “highlights” show, where actors could be given the chance to share their favorite memories and express the impact that being in that show had on them?  

What if, after two to three weeks of vacation/reflection following closing night, actors could reconvene for a week to create and rehearse this follow-up performance.  Plus, if the theater had an active website on which all participants (including audiences) could share their experiences and opinions about the show, this follow-up performance could also serve to address any critiques or to further discuss with the community the issues presented in the play.

I’ve never heard of this being tried before, but I’d certainly love the opportunity. 

Thoughts?  Opinions?  Please Share!

*Rocklin Shakespeare would usually rehearse for about three to four months prior to performance.

Photo courtesy of http://www.theshirtlist.com

Improving the “Typical" Theater Experience Part One: Audience

In a world where nearly all forms of entertainment are accessible by computer or smart phone it is easy to view the act of seeing a play as something not only inessential, but downright obsolete.  In one sense, I agree.  Why should you pay upwards of twelve bucks to see The Sound of Music (or A Midsummer Night’s Dream, for that matter) for the umpteenth time when Oscar’s 2011 Best Picture is still playing at the local movie theater for the same price?  

If we are discussing most theater as we know it today, in both experiences you will be sitting in a dark room and required to be mostly passive and silent.  Perhaps the show will be entertaining and you will feel a sense of camaraderie with others in the audience who are laughing along with you during the performance/movie, but when the lights go up, then what?  Maybe you’ll be able to applaud at the live show and talk to a few actors who will politely nod before moving on to their friends and family, but in both the live theater and movie theater scenario you will likely leave the building with a head full of thoughts and opinions and no where to put them.

Though I cannot speak for everyone, I would call this my “typical theater experience” as an audience member.  This is not to critique the quality of the writing or acting in the plays I’ve seen, because so many have been excellent, but I usually leave the theater with a slight feeling of emptiness.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I’m alone in this.

So why does the experience need improvement?

If we focus a little bit on the movie theater model, it’s easy to measure success.  Looking at content, the highest grossing film of all time is James Cameron’s Avatar.  The draw for repeat viewings of this film was the fact that the 3D experience was vastly superior in the theaters; so much so that the film was re-released a few months later for a second triumph at the box office.  Audiences raved about the special effects and gave credit to advances in filmmaking technology.  The film was not the stand-out in writing, acting or plot (different films took home the Oscars that year) but the experience of watching the film was revolutionarily innovative for the industry.

By comparing** financial success in the movie industry with theater, the point I’m trying to make is not that live theater needs to heavily invest in special effects but that much more importance needs to be placed on the audience experience.  When I say that the “typical theater experience” needs to be improved upon, I am speaking specifically to that sense of alienation and emptiness generated in audience members leaving the theater after a performance.

At the beginning of this blog I noted that the increase in access to entertainment (thanks to ever-advancing technology) may be making the need for live theater obsolete.  However, this technology only makes entertainment broadly accessible at the individual level.  In other words, I don’t see large groups of people getting together in one room to watch their favorite TV show on their individual iPads… yet.

What I do see (and participate in) are social meetings on a virtual plane.  Facebook is the greatest example of this kind of activity, where people log in to be social on their own time.  They may not have direct contact with their friends, but they leave messages that produce a similar (if not slightly more superficial) sense of socialization.  Diane Ragsdale notes in her article, Recreating Fine Arts Institutions that “Americans live in an increasingly free, time-shifting, do-it-yourself culture.  Fully half of all teens have created a blog or Web page, posted original artwork, photographs, stories or videos online, or remixed online content into their own creations.”  In these terms, our culture has never before had a stronger sense of creativity, yet little of it seems to be transferring to the audience experience at the local theaters.

Is it possible for theaters to harness the creativity of their audiences?  Can technology that is used to create virtual social spaces enhance the social experience of audience members who are together in a physical space?  By embracing what technology has facilitated in America as a culture of change, can theaters adapt their models to not only be more elastic but also allow for DIY participation from their audiences?

Yes.  Yes.  Yes.

I believe it is entirely possible for theaters to do all of these things.  The first step is simply allowing the public to participate in multiple levels of engagement at strategic points along the artistic process.  To illustrate what I mean, I will list examples and place them on something I call “the active engagement scale.”  

Ms. Ragsdale details one example:

“Four years ago, Chicago’s Steppenwolf Theatre launched First Look 101, in which they invite 101 patrons to join them at important steps of developing a new play.  Most arts organizations offer behind-the-scenes opportunities only for major donors.  First Look 101, however, is affordable ($45 for students and $75 for others) and open to anyone.  The three-month program gives people the chance to attend an unrehearsed table reading, the first day of rehearsal (including designer presentations), a rehearsal involving blocking an scene work, a technical rehearsal (when elements such as lights and sound are incorporated), and a final performance.”

This example is what I would designate to the lower end of the active engagement scale.  Though the program demystifies the artistic process and allows audiences to look at and listen to what the theater is doing in the stages before opening night, they are not asked to give feedback nor are they given opportunities to create.

Arena Stage also developed a “First Look” style program called “Theater 101” but added an important component.  They note on their site that “each event will be followed by a discussion moderated by Arena artistic staff.”  The discussion opportunity raises this program to the moderate level of engagement on the scale as audiences are given a chance to express their opinions and ideas.  Still, the creativity of the audience is left largely untapped.

Because so many opportunities for creative expression are available online, I think one of the easiest ways for audiences to reach the high end of the active engagement scale (where they are observing, reflecting, expressing AND creating) is to give them a voice on the theater organization’s website.  One example of this comes from On the Boards, who invited “members of their community” ---including audience members--- to publish their impressions about performances on the Blog the Boards section of the organization’s website.  Risky?  Possibly, though it appears blog posts were moderated to prevent any personal attacks.  Successful?  It appears so!  There was a large quantity of blogs (spanning several years) and those I clicked at random were insightful and well-written: a definite improvement on most fan forums I’ve seen in the past.

Another example of high active audience engagement would be performances that actually take audience volunteers to participate in the show.  Improvisational comedy (like that on Whose Line is it, Anyway?) is often reliant on audience suggestions and ideas to craft the performance.  Productions that follow the format of Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed allow audience members to “pause” a performance and step into the action on stage in order to solve the problems created by the actors in the scene.  In both examples, audiences can voice their opinions and suggestions to directly affect the show and create new outcomes.

All of these examples are given to show that theaters are trying interesting and innovative techniques to engage their audiences at multiple levels of activity.  Perhaps these specific methods are not all appropriate for my local theaters, but they certainly help to get ideas flowing.

In a culture of change, it is important that the theater experience does not fall into the category of “typical.”  We are all far too creative for redundancy.

**Supplementary Explanation of Comparing For-Profit to Non-Profit Businesses:

Most live theater organizations are not for-profit businesses, so it is not always easy to draw accurate comparisons.  For a movie theater, the audience decides with their dollars about what appeals to them, but the measure of a non-profit’s success is a little more complex.   To begin, a non-profit, while allowed to make a profit (or more accurately, a “surplus”), cannot distribute that income to its members (the equivalent of this would be a corporation paying dividends to its share holders).  Those earnings must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion and future plans.

With this in mind, the first priority of a non-profit organization (by law) is to its mission.  Mission statements for non-profit theaters fall under the “Public Benefit Non-Profit Corporation” category, which is restricted to “businesses formed for scientific, charitable, literary, or educational purposes.”  The following is an example of a non-profit theater’s mission statement:

[City Name] Rep's mission is to stimulate, celebrate and enhance understanding of ourselves and others through the shared experience of live theatre by producing new plays and classics marked by innovative interpretations and a reflection and inclusion of our community and the world in which we live.

The key phrase in this statement is “enhance understanding” which relates to the “educational purpose” aspect of a non-profit mission statement.  If the theater achieves its mission through its operations, one could argue that it is a successful non-profit, even if it has lost money.  Of course, if the non-profit continues to lose money it will not be able to maintain the operations that achieve its mission, therefore a positive revenue stream can be a supplementary measure of the non-profit’s lasting success.

In contrast, the basic “mission” of a for-profit business is simply to make a profit.  The commonality is that not losing money helps both kinds of businesses, no matter where their priorities lie.

Is Shakespeare Relevant?

Is Shakespeare relevant?  There are a few possible perspectives on this question, but for now I will explain why the life of one William Shakespeare is incredibly relevant to Rocklin Shakespeare’s current situation.

 

The Bard is known by many labels and titles but one that everyone seems to agree upon is the fact that Shakespeare was a populist.  In order to draw the big crowds day after day, Shakespeare had to write plays that included elements to appeal to a broad local audience.  Including elements that appealed to the masses as well as to royalty, Shakespeare ensured that everyone would like something about his latest play.  Many critique Shakespeare for borrowing most of his plots, but others argue that he chose his plots strategically: he appealed to what was popular and what was important to his audience at that moment in time.  Shakespeare always wrote what was relevant.

If we are to succeed in reaching our community with theater, I hypothesize that we too must know our audience and produce what is interesting and appealing to them.  When choosing our plays we have to ask ourselves what the current issues are in our community, what people are thinking about and what they’re talking about.  We must consider all age groups, races, ethnicities, religious groups and political groups that compose our audience, and we must figure out a way to appeal to them all.  Shakespeare’s job (and sometimes his life) depended on these skills.

Hypothesis: If we are to succeed, then we have to learn from Shakespeare.

“Is [insert title] by William Shakespeare relevant to our community?”  This is the question to ask ourselves and we will have to be specific about what is relevant by addressing current issues.  For example, will this play help us better understand the turmoil in the Middle East?  What about our current unemployment problems?  Will this play provide a perspective on hot topics like unions or the income disparity between the middle class and the super rich?   In order to ask these questions, we will have to be like Shakespeare and stay on top of the issues of the day.  We’ll also have to be strategic to address issues that will still be noteworthy by the time our rehearsals are over and we’re ready to perform.  Staying relevant takes work.

Sometimes (maybe even often) none of Shakespeare’s plays will be relevant to the issues we believe to be the most important for us to address in our community.  That is why I believe we’ll need to evolve as playwrights as well as performers.  We will have to become Rocklin’s own type of Shakespeare to produce new and relevant work that appeals to everyone.  In this case, even if the content we produce is modern, the name “Rocklin Shakespeare” still applies.

On a broader scale, I'm very interested in what defines a play as "relevant."  I also feel I need to outline what I mean by "succeeding" as a theater.  I'll leave these topics for future posts, but thoughts, opinions and reflections are always welcome.

Image of Shakespeare courtesy of www.vanishingshakespeare.org.

A New Beginning

What's past is prologue...
Rocklin Shakespeare began as an idea in 2005 to start an annual Summer Shakespeare Festival in Johnson-Springview Park.  The idea was realized in the summer of 2006 when we premiered our first production: William Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing.  From 2006-2010 we produced five Shakespearean productions and premiered two new plays.  Our goals throughout that time were to create a fun and secure space in which artists and actors could experiment with their craft, to stimulate collaboration through the support of a cohesive ensemble of players and to bring the fruit of our labors to the widest audience available by offering free admission.

Though we always achieved these goals, alone they did nothing to keep us economically sustainable.  Recent budget cuts to the city of Rocklin have forced changes to our previous arrangements with the Department of Parks and Recreation.  The monetary needs of the department have necessitated many new charges and fees in order for the Shakespeare in the Park program to continue.  Based on our current budget, I found that we do not have the ability to pay the new charges and fees required to produce free Shakespeare in the Park for 2011.  With a rather large fan base and following, community fund raising may have allowed us to pay the new fees; however, I felt it would be irresponsible to spend the community’s money to maintain a specific venue when more affordable options may be available.

With this in mind, I have to announce that the Shakespeare in the Park program is on hiatus but I would like to emphasize that Rocklin Shakespeare is still alive and well.  This situation should not be viewed as an ending but as a new beginning---one that I am very excited about.

A New Beginning:

The great boon of Rocklin Shakespeare’s current hiatus is that it allows us a chance at introspection.  Admittedly, I have known about these fee increases for several months but I did not wish to go public with the news until I had a clearer vision for the future of Rocklin Shakespeare.  During the past few months I’ve researched California non-profit law, devoured economic studies and blogs focusing on arts institutions, learned about inspiring new theater models, talked to local non-profits in the area about partnering and even got personal advice from some of the most respected experts in the field. 

My findings during these months of research have helped me to discover the kind of art that I want Rocklin Shakespeare to produce today.  They have also sharpened my perception of what value Rocklin Shakespeare’s previous work has contributed to the community and, in addition to that, what we can do in the future to have more impact than ever before.

The fact remains that our country is in a recession, that funding to granting institutions like the National Endowment for the Arts (as well as to state, county and community grant programs) has been slashed.  We have to face the reality that most people have less money to spend on things they would consider extras or luxuries and that many lump “going to the theater” into these categories.  It’s time for us to evaluate the validity of these claims.  We need to decide if the theater we produce is relevant and essential to our community.  If, at present, it is not, we need to determine the changes required to make it so.

This blog will serve as a think tank for that very premise.  We’ll need to take a hard look at the status quo of theater in our area, including (and especially) our own previous work.   By conducting scientific research to back up our theories and opinions, I believe we’ll reach the most accurate and unbiased conclusions for the state of our community theater.

The importance of these findings is that they will allow us to develop new practices for creating theater that is not only relevant but essential to our community.  To be scientific and accurate, however, we’ll need to make sure these practices are documented like any experiment: with full transparency.  By coupling the documentation of our experiments with critical analysis, one of the goals of this blog is to create a resource for community theater makers across the country. 

About Links on This Blog:

I hope this blog inspires theater makers in other communities to publish their own research and development findings so that we can all learn from one another.  If your blogs already exist, please send me an e-mail with the link and I will follow up with you about how I can include it on this site. 

By facilitating a dialogue that allows for a scientific approach to evaluating the impact of our art, I hope to also create more transparency about the best practices in theater today.  However, it is crucial that we understand that one model will never “rule them all.”  At Rocklin Shakespeare we will search for the best practices for our individual community, but our links will be categorized to help others determine the best practices listed in places most like their own.

Ideally links on this blog will be able to provide information on practices in rural areas, urban areas and everything in-between.  I would love to hear from high school theaters, college theaters and their independent, student-led theater groups as well so that we may perceive where our soon-to-be-emerging arts leaders will be coming from.   I also welcome a broad variation of models: some may be incorporated non-profit organizations, others will be clubs, and others may be programs that work in partnership with existing civic and service-oriented groups, etc.  No matter who you are, it is likely that someone of the same size, model or demographic exists and will benefit from learning about your experience.

Pay Attention to Blog Labels:

Not all blogs will report on the progress of current projects (which I like to nickname "experiments").  I will be writing a great deal of pieces with the label "Idea Blog."  Idea Blogs will present an idea or viewpoint for further discussion, but might not stem from strict scientific observation.  As a rule, I will try to label the blogs as clearly as possible so that site navigation is quick and easy. 

Looking forward to an exciting new beginning!

Dani Loebs

Rocklin Shakespeare

Director

Image of champagne bottle being smashed for ship's christening courtesy of Stock Illustration Source.