Katharine Clark Gray
the pulse:
resides in:
Philadelphia, PA
contact by:
katie@chipchair.com
their site:
http://www.katharineclarkgray.com
Playwriting Biography:
· Siblings (working title). With Edward Staroselsky, Adam Mutterperl. © 2003 by E. Staroselsky.
· Places (working title). With Mike Folie, Steven Gridley, Francis Kuzler and Kelly McAllister. Zeus’ Thigh Films.
Awards & Fellowships:
-2008 recipient, Pew Fellowship in the Arts
-Winner, Reverie Production's Next Generation Playwriting Competition (USER 927)
-Winner, Kitchen Theatre Co.'s 1st Annual Ithaca Great Playwrights Competition (FRANCIS BACON)
Commissions:
-2009-10: THE PESTILENCE IS COMING (a musical), Full Circle Theatre Co. www.fullcircletheatre.com
-2008: USER 927, Brat Productions, Philadelphia PA. www.bratproductions.org
Katharine Clark Gray's Blog
In Response to Richard's Post
by Katharine Gray
posted: 2009-01-15 14:17:33
Hey y'all: Katie G here. This is my first time bloggin' on the website, hooray!
I got all fired up and wrote this to the Broad Street Review in response to Richard K's recent message about the intersection of free speech and professional courtesy (not to mention creativity). Anyone who missed the deal, here's the link:
http://www.broadstreetreview.com/index.php/main/article/free_speech_vs_creativity_at_the_wilma/
I'd encourage everyone to communicate their own response to the BSR, even if they land on the opposite side of the issue. But for anyone who's interested, this is what I sent 'em:
As both a playwright and a music critic, my first thought is that if Mr. Rutter was, as Mr. Rottenberg suggests, unaware of the "in-progress" nature of this event, he simply didn't do his job. A critic is a representative of his publication, and as such is responsible for the same due diligence as any reporter. And any reporter with even a cursory understanding of the play development process should have understood that readings are NOT for review unless explicitly advertised as a ticketed concert event. I find it implausible that the evening unfolded without a single moderator uttering the words "work in progress"? But even pretending that no one, not a soul, mentioned "W.I.P.", is it not made obvious by the actors carrying their scripts in hand? By the solicitation of feedback at the conclusion? When have these conventions *not* equaled "This Isn't Done Yet"? A review suggests that what you are evaluating has been declared ready for public consumption by the creator. If I was a baker trying out a new recipe for my shop, I might well seek the opinion of a Craig LaBan or an Adam Erace-- might give them a sample from the experimental batch and ask, "What do you think?" But I would NOT expect them to turn around and write a public review of that beta-test cookie. Such a review would not only be highly unfair, but pure misrepresentation. Inviting feedback from an audience, in person, is NOT the same as asking said audience to put that feedback in an international data bank, accessible to anyone with a browser. Any critic with even modest aspirations of legitimacy should know the difference. Perhaps Mr. Rutter is just an old head who isn't quite used to this "online" jazz yet, but the instant you publish something on an unencrypted web page, it's a matter of public record. That's tantamount to publishing in newsprint with a byline, which I think is more clearly understood as a no-no for readings. Toby Zinman might have been at that reading, but I'll bet you $100 she didn't put a review in the Inquirer. Thank you for removing the post, Mr. Rottenberg. I only hope you come to understand that the crux of the issue is *NOT* simply whether or not reviewing a W.I.P. is a "pointless exercise". Rather, it is a matter of proper representation, professional courtesy and respect.
Comments:
In Response to Richard's Post
by Katharine Gray
posted: 2009-01-15 14:14:10
Hey y'all: Katie G here. This is my first time bloggin' on the website, hooray!
I got all fired up and wrote this to the Broad Street Review in response to Richard K's recent message about the intersection of free speech and professional courtesy (not to mention creativity). Anyone who missed the deal, here's the link:
http://www.broadstreetreview.com/index.php/main/article/free_speech_vs_creativity_at_the_wilma/
I'd encourage everyone to communicate their own response to the BSR, even if they land on the opposite side of the issue. But for anyone who's interested, this is what I sent 'em:
As both a playwright and a music critic, my first thought is that if Mr. Rutter was, as Mr. Rottenberg suggests, unaware of the "in-progress" nature of this event, he simply didn't do his job. A critic is a representative of his publication, and as such is responsible for the same due diligence as any reporter. And any reporter with even a cursory understanding of the play development process should have understood that readings are NOT for review unless explicitly advertised as a ticketed concert event. I find it implausible that the evening unfolded without a single moderator uttering the words "work in progress"? But even pretending that no one, not a soul, mentioned "W.I.P.", is it not made obvious by the actors carrying their scripts in hand? By the solicitation of feedback at the conclusion? When have these conventions *not* equaled "This Isn't Done Yet"? A review suggests that what you are evaluating has been declared ready for public consumption by the creator. If I was a baker trying out a new recipe for my shop, I might well seek the opinion of a Craig LaBan or an Adam Erace-- might give them a sample from the experimental batch and ask, "What do you think?" But I would NOT expect them to turn around and write a public review of that beta-test cookie. Such a review would not only be highly unfair, but pure misrepresentation. Inviting feedback from an audience, in person, is NOT the same as asking said audience to put that feedback in an international data bank, accessible to anyone with a browser. Any critic with even modest aspirations of legitimacy should know the difference. Perhaps Mr. Rutter is just an old head who isn't quite used to this "online" jazz yet, but the instant you publish something on an unencrypted web page, it's a matter of public record. That's tantamount to publishing in newsprint with a byline, which I think is more clearly understood as a no-no for readings. Toby Zinman might have been at that reading, but I'll bet you $100 she didn't put a review in the Inquirer. Thank you for removing the post, Mr. Rottenberg. I only hope you come to understand that the crux of the issue is *NOT* simply whether or not reviewing a W.I.P. is a "pointless exercise". Rather, it is a matter of proper representation, professional courtesy and respect.
Comments: