The Art in Urban Improv

We Agents use the term "urban improv" (or simply "urban") frequently and in conversation, but does the rest of the world? Are we even so certain ourselves about what it means to put on an Urban Improv? Improv itself, as a larger genre, is going through a period of rebirth, redefining itself both for the general public and for those intimate with the art. That being the case, can we possibly hope to write a definition for what urban improv is? Where is the line between urban improv and pranks? How much should be prepared? Should we capitalize it? I hope that I can answer these questions.

For those of you already blamelessly confused, I will do my best to briefly define urban improv. Urban improv is a field of improv play that involves the playing out of unusual situations or the displacement of usual situations in public locations, with an audience previously unawares of the purpose or plan of action. Wow. That felt fantastic. I could almost leave it there. Wait, actually, I have a lot more to say, because if you are not used to reading the dictionary (as I am, being an English nerd) then you might still have no idea what I am getting at.

Up until very recently, improv as an art form has been defined and described using one of two terms: "short form" or "long form." These nicknames, spelled with and without a space between the words, refer on a basic level to the length of the improv scene unit, but have a world of difference in theory and application. That is a topic for another day. Urban improv may either fall under long form or it may be its own category altogether. I cannot pretend to have the community authority to place it under either one, but the uncertainty here illustrates the ambiguous nature of urban improv as a form.

How about examples? In my own blog, I once critiqued and highlighted urban improv at other schools around the country. My favorite independent acts include the UmPatriot's PacMan and Prangstgrüp's legendary Lecture Musical, but the powerhouse of urban improv is without a doubt NYC's ImprovEverywhere. Their site is constantly updated with new missions, ranging in size from a five person team to literally hundreds of participants. As for us, you can check out our own web site's urban improv page and read some mission reports.

Is it improv? Each event is carefully planned, sometimes even with scale diagrams of the setting detailing the walking path of an individual player or discreet collections of costumes and supplies. No player enters the urban improv scene not knowing "what to do." Where improv comes into play is primarily in the absolute acceptance of the reality of the scene. In our Moebius, where eleven simple actions and conversations were repeated sixteen times in a library café, each player knew they had to respond realistically to their environment: if anyone asked what was going on, they had to categorically deny anything strange was occurring, claim they had not been around for more than five minutes, and maintain these interactions on each following cycle. All that is not to mention that they had to invent their response on the spot. Even as detailed as planning was for that mission, it still sounds like improv to me.

How do you refer to an individual act of urban improv? Our group, lacking anything else, has opted to call them "urbans," though this irks the occaisional logophile. Others call them events, stunts, goons, acts, and even pranks. I hesitate to use the last, because the connotation of "prank" implies that it is destructive or mean in its nature. Urban improv, I argue, is quite the opposite. The major objectives for any urban improv idea should always be fun, smiles, and a break of routine. Pranks cause inconvenience and discomfort, and in some cases may even be dangerous (e.g. using rope to tie two doors together). Urban improv should, in the end, delight, impress, and inspire its audience.

Modernism. Impressionism. Method acting. These and other styles of art are capitalized. However, they are very specific in meaning, and those well versed in their history can readily categorize any example. Can the same be said for urban improv? Yes, it is a more specific form of improv (which itself is not capitalized), but is it a school of improv? Or is it a specific set of improv ideals? Well, no, it is not a set perspective on improv, not a particular form, but it does have its own ideals. So, because it does not meet all of the requirements, I do not capitalize it. Perhaps what causes the difficulty here is the fact that urban improv is in many ways not improvised, so it becomes difficult to call it, strictly speaking, improv. Purists will disagree, but I think that being relaxed about the categorization is OK. Second City already blurs the line between sketch and improv, so what should prevent us from blurring the line between street performance and improvisation?

Urban improv is in its infancy. This entry is an exploration, but it is by no means dogmatic. Please post comments with your own thoughts about urban improv!

Best,
Nicholas J. Carroll
Master of Ceremonies
Agents of Improv