Yeah, I’ve not posted in a while. Frankly, the desire to do so is tempered by the twin powers of time and show assignments. When I do make a text post, which I will attempt to make weekly, I hope to at least make it a long one.

As you may but probably don’t know, loyal reader(?), my program at The University of Illinois, The Division of Design, Technology, and Management, (or DDTM) has been rebranded. We are now called Level 21 at The Krannert Center. My feelings about this are twofold:

First, our new name. During the presentation in which this change was announced, we were told, approximately, “DDTM is an unwieldy and unfamiliar term. When you tell people that you are in DDTM, they have no idea what you’re talking about . . . We have members of our department on level 1, (of our building) and we have people on level 5, and even a few people on level 6. But when you bring them all together, we become Level 21 at Krannert Center.” The idea, which was illustrated by a Power Point presentation, is that by adding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 together, we get a symbolic 21. Immediately following the meeting, the name was derided, and I was among those who mocked it. The main and most logical argument against the name change was that Level 21 is much harder to try and explain than DDTM, thus invalidating the reasoning behind the change. But after giving it some thought, I believe the rebranding was poorly narrated, not poorly picked. The staff would have done well to speak in longer terms. The idea is not that the name will immediately become well known, or be easier to explain, but rather will grow to be known, in part due to our unique moniker. Any school might have a Division of Design, Technology and Management, but there will only ever be one Level 21 at Krannert Center. What saddened me the most was news that some individuals were going to refuse to put the new name on their resumes. The task of the next few graduating classes will be as harbingers of Krannert’s new image and direction. We are the spearhead of this change, and if we don’t take up that charge, we will invalidate the very idea of improving the program, doing a disservice to all.

Now, I cannot continue much further without elaborating on exactly what changes were announced. Practically, the differences are rather slim. Departmental power has now been divided between two individuals in an effort to consolidate future efforts to open lines of communication between students and staff. Our schedules have also been cleared in order to accommodate our seeing about half a dozen travelling shows that will be visiting Krannert, which is a marvelous and welcome change. The largest changes are abstract ones. We have a new mission statement, which emphasizes the joy that should be present in working in theatre. Mission statements are usually pretty masturbatory in nature, and serve to make the heads of departments look really good. What impressed me is that it was demanded of us that we hold the department accountable for that statement. With only two people heading the department now, we are able to very, very easily approach a person of importance regarding any concerns we might have. The second abstract change is one that lies in the periphery of the main one. The staff is receptive and excited. More than they ever have been, at least. I’ve noticed, a few weeks into class now, that the general feeling of a change being needed has been focused by this rebranding effort into actual excitement about what the program might become. I’ve become closer with my advisors in three weeks than I have in two years. Granted, much of that is owing to a fresh mindset that my summer job granted me, but some of it surely has to do with the new effort to open fresh lines of communication with the students in the department. The burden of change has been placed heavily on the shoulders of the students, as we are the only ones that know what the student experience is, and how it should change.

Will our program become successful, and make Level 21 a name to be proud of in the world of professional theatre, or will the stirring of the stagnant pot that is our program only dredge up feelings of mistrust and reluctance? We’ve been challenged as a department, friends. What will we do?