Hey Aleks. If you ever drop by here….

Thanks for coming and pleased you enjoyed, mostly. I’m interested in your response about the *form* we use to present the material being “entertaining rather than mind-blowing” – with the clear sense that this was disappointing for you.

I’m unaware of us ever having claimed to be trying to blow anyone’s mind with the form with which we’re communicating. So I’m genuinely interested in how or where we’ve set up this expectation for an audience. Because our work is very rarely (if ever) about this. While we’re admirers of other artists playing with and exploring the breaking and invention of new forms for performance, we’re really not interested in doing so ourselves. And have never claimed to be. We like the existing forms and consider them pretty effective for the most part.

Just as well we’ve got some good material, I suppose. Content over form, eh? Who’d have thunk it might be appealing.

As for not being “a patch on, for example, Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen”…..

(___massive sigh___)

…reads a bit like

“…not a patch on, for example,…..

(___author thinks for some but not much time about other examples of the ‘best science on stage’ he might be able to muster but fails/can’t be arsed___)

Or maybe I’m just being a bit grumpy and unfair….?

Best, JON.

Thanks for coming and pleased you enjoyed, mostly. I’m interested in your response about the *form* we use to present the material being “entertaining rather than mind-blowing” – with the clear sense that this was disappointing for you.

I’m unaware of us ever having claimed to be trying to blow anyone’s mind with the form with which we’re communicating. So I’m genuinely interested in how or where we’ve set up this expectation for an audience. Because our work is very rarely (if ever) about this. While we’re admirers of other artists playing with and exploring the breaking and invention of new forms for performance, we’re really not interested in doing so ourselves. And have never claimed to be. We like the existing forms and consider them pretty effective for the most part.

Just as well we’ve got some good material, I suppose. Content over form, eh? Who’d have thunk it might be appealing.

As for not being “a patch on, for example, Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen”…..

…reads a bit like

“…not a patch on, for example,…..

Or maybe I’m just being a bit grumpy and unfair…..?

Best, JON.