Are We Talent?
Tue, 24 Sept 2002, 07:28 pmGilly26 posts in thread
Are We Talent?
Tue, 24 Sept 2002, 07:28 pmAs the lovely Jenny McNae pointed out at the judging of the 2002 Youthfest, actors and models have long been called simply 'talent'. Is this acceptable by todays standards? Personally, I do not believe that those of us taking the stage should be refered to as simply as 'the talent', and we do in fact have names. This is similar to pole run a while ago of how actors should be known as, be it their character name right through a 'hey, you'. The question I am putting forward is how should the actors/model/dancers of today be known? Is 'the talent' simply enough?
Ponder for a while...
Alan
Ponder for a while...
Alan
Re: Aren't We a Talented Bunch?
Sat, 28 Sept 2002, 08:10 pmThankyou JG, you have made a very good statement in rebutal to Tiger's antics.
'We' does not encompass the whole lot of us. It plainly suggests that the majority may feel this way, and, if you will read my original post Tiger, the question I did pose was if the rest of the acting public (ametuer or proffesional) object to be refered to simply as 'talent'.
This isn't a question of 'are we talented'. That we are, no doubt, in some way, shape or form. Personally, I would like to be known by my name, and not as the talent. Tiger may like to be called the talent; possibly suggesting that he is talented, but I would like to be known by my name, suggesting that my previous roles have been memorable enough to recall my name (assuming it is for the right reasons). Entertainer/performers do sell themselves to the audiences; most of us do not even see the fruits of our hard labour; and it takes a lot of guts to get up there and do it. For that I believe that we should recieve some conceivable level of respect from those who enlist our services and 'talent' in the form of personal regognition as opposed to the group label.
Basically, what I am trying to say is I agree with most/all of you who have responded, and that we (or any other group with a talent, for that matter) should receive the regognition we deserve. Even teachers like to be known better than 'sir' or 'miss', so what's the difference?
Cheers
Alan Gill
"I am at two with nature"
- Mark Twain
'We' does not encompass the whole lot of us. It plainly suggests that the majority may feel this way, and, if you will read my original post Tiger, the question I did pose was if the rest of the acting public (ametuer or proffesional) object to be refered to simply as 'talent'.
This isn't a question of 'are we talented'. That we are, no doubt, in some way, shape or form. Personally, I would like to be known by my name, and not as the talent. Tiger may like to be called the talent; possibly suggesting that he is talented, but I would like to be known by my name, suggesting that my previous roles have been memorable enough to recall my name (assuming it is for the right reasons). Entertainer/performers do sell themselves to the audiences; most of us do not even see the fruits of our hard labour; and it takes a lot of guts to get up there and do it. For that I believe that we should recieve some conceivable level of respect from those who enlist our services and 'talent' in the form of personal regognition as opposed to the group label.
Basically, what I am trying to say is I agree with most/all of you who have responded, and that we (or any other group with a talent, for that matter) should receive the regognition we deserve. Even teachers like to be known better than 'sir' or 'miss', so what's the difference?
Cheers
Alan Gill
"I am at two with nature"
- Mark Twain
- ···
- ···