Raygun: performance vs. performer

My opinion article below was first published in Status Magazine, issue 160, p. 5.

“The rest of the world sees impro in the same way we saw Raygun—with a mix of surprise, indignation, and secondhand embarrassment.”

In last month’s opinion here, Feña Ortalli thinks of Raygun as a bad ambassador for the art form of breaking based on her performance at the recent Paris Olympics. 

The parallel with improvisation is quickly drawn: improvisation gets a bad name when improvisers overshoot and perform badly at a visible occasion.

I find myself in a tricky situation. I do agree that Raygun’s performance at the Olympics was subpar. Admittedly, I don’t know much about breaking but the judges agreed with me awarding her zero points.

I also agree with Feña’s wider point that bad performances can give a niche art form like improvisation a bad name.

However, and here comes my actual point. We can have opinions about performances, even if we have seen only one, but let’s be weary of judging the performer. Any improviser knows that not every performance is their best. Sometimes you can have a bad day yourself, sometimes the circumstances weren’t right. 

In fact, if you watch videos of previous performances of Raygun, you’ll see that they are not weird like her Olympic performance. Even if she’s not at the level of an Olympic champion like people suggest, she seems like an experienced breaker to me. 

So here’s my plea for not judging improvisers based on one performance. You could have seen someone’s best and be disappointed in the future. You could have seen someone’s worst and be pleasantly surprised at the next occasion. Unless your first judgment has already caused you to avoid seeing them again? That would be a pity.

What if we could let our opinion of any improviser be formed over time? And if we’ve seen them only once, keep your own worst show in mind. Would you like to be judged based only on that one? 

by Ben Verhoeven