Talking Improv

Is Improv Legitimate Art?

So when thinking up of the next post to write for this blog, I got inspired by sitting in and observing a workshop being conducted by one of my friends. Watching them teach improv and seeing the reactions of the students made me think about improv in a broader sense.

These people are taking the workshop because they want to be there. They see improv as something of worth that goes beyond a strictly monetary value. Then that got me thinking about improv outside of the circle of thought that I (and my friends) have with it. We see it as more than just a “cute” thing we do occasionally. We take our craft as serious as an actor might with his method of acting.

In observing said workshop, I wrote the following note down (pardon the unnecessarily smug existential tone):

“Can improv be considered a legitimate art form? What about it makes people think it’s not? What about it do participants feel justifies it being considered a legit artform?”

I think improv is not only legitimate art, but when done well, it can rival the best scripted plays and those big blockbuster sing-songy musicals that everyone seems to love so damn much. I’ve seen poorly acted theatre performances and I’ve seen absolutely abysmal improv. They both elicited the exact same response from me: “Dear God this is painful to watch.”

So then is the bad theatre show still better than the bad improv show just because it’s been around longer and more widely accepted as performace art? No. Bad theatre is bad theatre, scripted lines or not. So then the inverse must be true as well, right? Great theatre and great improv are both equally enjoyable, therefore both are legitimate art.

These are just my opinions. I would love to read what you have to say on the subject of art and where improv falls in that spectrum. Let’s get a conversation started! What are your thoughts?