And yet again and again, I have come across exactly that: people who have either gone from one field into the other (generally from science to theater) or who are still involved in both. There also seem to be quite a few married couples where each partner is in one of the two fields. The question is – why? Is it coincidence, or is there something about these two occupations that attracts the same kind of person? Both fields of work demand great involvement, generally above and beyond an office job. Both involve working with other people in cooperation, as a rule. Both may involve looking for the abstract and general behind the realistic immediacy. Are there other factors relating the two fields? Or are our ideas of human types mistaken, and people just do not fall into such neat categories?
I sent out a question on a theater stagecraft list, looking for people who were or had been involved in both theater and science. I also looked for couples who were involved in the two areas, thinking that they might have insight into their partner’s profession from the opposite angle. The first answers came from the stagecraft list, but as the word spread I began receiving emails from all kinds of people. I asked them all the same series of questions, and their answers are varied and occasionally contradict each other. Some of their words made a strong personal impression on me. I found that all of them spoke from their own immediate experience, rather than repeating accepted wisdom. I found it moving and refreshing to see these two ostensibly different lines of work reflected through the personal prism of people who had lived through them.
I. Who they are
Many people answered my original note, and those appearing below are a fairly representative selection. Some work in technical aspects of theater, which might most easily be seen to relate to science: Charlie Richmond, for example, is an authority on theater sound design, which utilizes his knowledge of engineering as well as theater. Nathan Kahn is involved in special effects: most Broadway shows use his fog and haze. Allison Koster worked as a chemist and then as lighting designer and technical supervisor.
However not all the people interviewed are involved in technical aspects of theater. Brian Schwartz from New York, a theoretical physicist, is married to Teri Black who directs a theater which puts on plays about science. Gioia de Cari, also from New York, began as a mathematician, now acts and sings, and is married to a scientist involved in music. Lenore is a physicist and Stuart works in theater, but she has worked in theater and he has studied science.
First I wanted to know a bit about the people themselves. I asked them what kind of work they do, and what had brought them to this line of work in the first place. After that I asked each of them what they think about working in science and theater, and whether the two have anything in common.
Stuart and Lenore |
Stuart and Lenore:
Both of them seem to have always liked both physics and theater:
Stuart: I was 3.5 years into a 5 year Biology/Biochem/something like that major, when I decided I really liked theatre better, and realized I was making all my money doing theatre related work, so I switched, and threw away 147 hours of academic classes which became 'electives.' I took a BFA degree in theatre design and production, then worked as the master electrician at a university, then as technical director for a small theatre. Now I work for a company that builds theatre scenery for cruise ships and displays for interactive museum exhibits.
Lenore: Today I'm Assoc. Prof. in the physics dept. at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (and no, there isn't a comma in that name officially).
I have a Ph.D. in physics and no formal studies beyond one semester in high school of drama in theater. From elementary school on, I was involved in some way in most of the theater productions at my school - tech, acting, pit orchestra at various times. After 3 years of grad school, I took two years off and the second year decided, more or less on a whim, to respond to an ad in a local paper for actors by asking if they needed tech people. I ended up working 4 or 5 shows, as ASM or SM (assistant stage manager, stage manager – JK) and often sound board operator, before going back to grad school. I haven't done any theater in the ensuing 11 years although I have in the last 7 years gone back to being fairly active musically.
What led you to go into science?Stuart: I liked it in high school.
Lenore: I like figuring out how things work and sometimes figuring out better ways to do things. I read Asimov's "Left Hand of the Electron" some time in upper grade school and decided then that I wanted to be a particle physicist. As I went through college, I realized that wasn't the most interesting field, but really hadn't settled on one for graduate school. I more or less fell into doing condensed matter things.
What led you to go into theater? Stuart: I realized liked it more and I didn't need to pass calculus.
Lenore: In my grade school pretty much everyone did some stage work. I liked watching plays, musicals, and operas and as a general rule consider doing more fun than watching.
Dallas and James |
Dallas and James Coplin:
This couple is half-and-half: she in theater, he in science. Both work in the "applied" aspects of these fields. Dallas has worked as a scenic artist and now manages a performing arts center at East Central University, Oklahoma. James is an electrical engineer.
James: I suppose I've always been interested in electronics. As a kid I would take apart my toys and save the circuit boards thinking I could build some sort of super toy from them. My grandfather has worked as a pilot as long as I can remember. It was through his contacts that I landed my first job in the aviation industry. I've been here ever since.
Dallas: I had always been interested in science and thought it was neat, but my sophomore year of high school I went for a tour of the local high school theatre tech program, and I immediately joined that. I decided to go to college to study theatre because I really wanted a job that would be fun, interesting, and that I could travel anywhere. The more I learned about theatre the more I realized that with every show came completely new and different things, and everyone around the world has shows, so I would theoretically be able to go anywhere.
Judy M |
Judy M
Judy is married to a mathematician, has studied math and worked in computer science, and has been property stage manager for the past 23 years at the Milwaukee Chamber Theater, also works at the Milwaukee Rep and Next Act Theatre.
Judy M: I started doing theater in 8th grade and never stopped. I always figured I would do theater, but not necessarily professionally. I was always good at math and I was also interested in computers (this was the 70's, mind you), so when I went to college, I started out majoring in math, partly because I didn't like writing papers And I took some theater classes, and worked on a lot of plays. My junior year, I hit the wall in math, and switched my major to theater because I had taken enough classes that I would still be able to graduate on time.
After college I got in to the Yale Drama School and decided to go there. Yale's Computer Science Dept. has a famous artificial intelligence program (computers and linguistics) and I audited a class while I was in the Drama School. This led to a summer job with the CS department editing transcripts from an AI conference that they hosted. After I finished Drama School, my husband was still finishing his dissertation in math, and I took a job as a system manager with the Computer Science Dept. When my husband got a job at UW-Milwaukee we moved there. I got a contract computer job writing and editing computer documentation. About a year later I started working for the Milwaukee Chamber Theatre. I was able to juggle both jobs for 16 years. Then the contract job ended.
From “Pierre and Marie”, Break a Leg Productions |
Brian Schwartz and Teri Black
Brian, a physicist, is the Vice-President for Research and Sponsored Programs at the City University of New York Graduate Center. For the past 8 years he has directed a Science & the Arts outreach program there. At least one outreach program per semester is the staged reading of a play related to science – often produced by Teri’s company. The photograph is of their production of “Pierre and Marie,” a play about the Curies.
Teri is the "owner" (if there is such a thing) and the guiding spirit, as well as a leading actress of the theater company "Break- A - Leg Productions". The name refers both to the "good luck" wish among theater people and the fact that Teri broke a leg in New Mexico on ice at the beginning of her career. They put on plays (often staged readings), many of them "science plays", every couple of months, a number of them at the CUNY Graduate Center.
Brian, why science?Brian: I was very good in mathematics and science and even as a child I knew I would become a mathematician or a scientist. I was always curious.
And why theater?Brian: I was always interested in communicating science. The two major events that lead me to theatre and public outreach were
- My role as the Director the American Physical Society’s centennial in 1999 in the city of Atlanta. I organized major city-wide science festival and outreach programs involving science and the performing and visual arts.
- The major symposia I organized at the Graduate Center when the play Copenhagen came to Broadway in 2000. As a result in 2004 I co-taught a course with Professor Marvin Carlson in the Graduate Center’s Theatre department entitled “Staging Science."
Chip Wood |
Chip Wood
Chip is retired from Motorola. He has generally always been involved in both stage and science/engineering simultaneously, and his wife is in theater:
Chip: Been both front and backstage since junior high, but was also in the geeky Audio-Video Club at the same time. This continued through high school, under-grad, and thru Ph.D. Met my wife backstage at U of Florida Players. We both have done both pro & amateur productions, both sides of the main drape, throughout our married life and still do.
I have a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, a Ph.D. in Speech and Hearing Science, worked my entire career in R&D in Speech Science and Human Factors. My wife was a high school drama teacher for 15 years. I did all her tech design and supervised her tech students.
My working career was 4 yrs as Ass't. Prof. of Speech Science at U of Arizona, a 5 year stint with the National Security Agency and the F.B.I., then went to Motorola in Fla. Started my own consulting business for 3 yrs, then Motorola brought me back to Phoenix with an offer I couldn't refuse. All the time I was in lots of Community theater, semi-pro, and even some full pro stage productions. Just before I got the 2nd Motorola offer I was doing 8 shows a week Dinner Theatre in Boca Raton.
I retired as a Principal Scientist in Motorola doing R&D on Human Factors of driving a car while using a cell phone. I've got 12 patents and won numerous awards, but the one I keep nearest my computer is the "Best Supporting Actor" for Luther Billis in "South Pacific".
What led you to go into science?Chip: I was always interested in how machines worked and took many apart to the dismay of my parents. Then went in the Army and learned Electronics. Never entered my mind to be anything besides a scientist. Except that immediately after leaving the Army, being young and single, I always regretted not going to NYC and trying to be an actor on Broadway.
But I have worked my entire career in the middle where the human meets the machine and vice-versa, and trying to make that culture gap as small as possible. Most work in one area or the other. I had the great joy to work in both. I helped the dumb, but dependable, machine work friendly-like with the brilliant, but fickle, human.
And what got you involved in theater??Chip: That one is easy, to meet pretty girls.
I was hanging around the lobby the 1st day in High School and this pretty girl sidled up very close to me and said- quote-"We need MEN in the Drama Class"- unquote. Since I was an adolescent boy, I needed no further encouragement. Worked out pretty well, as my wife of 42 years agrees since we met backstage.
Nathan making fog |
Nathan Kahn
Not everyone here belongs to a theater/science couple. Nathan Kahn, for instance:
Nathan: Science -- worked towards bachelor’s degree in Physics at Gettysburg College (Gettysburg, PA) but did not finish. Actually I was the top physics major and on a full scholarship, but I am also an entrepreneur and I just could not wait to get out into the business world.
Theatre -- was involved in drama during high school and college, and also community (non-profit) theatre groups. After college I started a business selling theatrical supplies, with emphasis on special effects (pyrotechnics, fog, etc.). Now I am only in the fog/haze business -- most Broadway shows that utilize atmospheric effects use my products, and the same with major motion pictures.
Charlie at work |
Charlie Richmond:
Charlie: Hmmmm... briefly, I started as an actor when I was 11 but switched to sound design at 15 and volunteered at a local amateur theatre group in Carmel, California plus worked as an electronic technician at a repair shop/sound contractor in Monterey till I graduated high school.
I read engineering at the University of California but switched to psychology because that was not really the path to a career in theatre sound, which is what I really wanted to do. In my third year of university (1969) American Conservatory Theatre offered me a job basically because mine was the only application in the file so I put university studies on hold...
And why theater?Charlie: At 11, entirely my mother's encouragement to audition for the role which I got. After that, I found it intoxicating and the people involved were vibrant, intelligent, exciting and vital - much more so than the vast majority of the rest of the world. Plus I loved drama and the ability to communicate and interact so directly with a receptive audience. But mainly the power to affect other people's lives and thoughts with such emotional force. You know.
I note that Chip, Nathan and Charlie find no tension at all between science and theater; they seem to have a holistic view of their occupations, and feel at home in both.
Gioia de Cari |
Gioia de Cari
Gioia: I started out as a mathematician, I went to graduate school at MIT. I qualified for the Ph.D. and wrote part of a dissertation, but then after much soul-searching decided to leave the field. My husband got his Ph.D. at MIT too, and continues to work as a scientist.
I had been acting and singing all my life, and tried to give it up during graduate school. Eventually I came back to it, and made it my profession. Like most actors, I work in a variety of media - theater, film, television. I am also a classical singer. My husband is a classical guitarist as well as a scientist. We recently released an album, and we tour doing concerts.
Allison grinding metal |
Allison Koster
Allison works as lighting designer and Assistant Technical Director/Scene Shop Supervisor for Theater & Dance at Carleton College in Minnesota. She has a BA in chemistry, worked for 11 years as chemistry stockroom and laboratory manager, then completed an MFA in scenic and lighting design and began working in that area, first teaching at a college, working as freelance carpenter, and finally at Carleton.
Allison: I did a lot of theatre in junior high and high school. It was fun, but I never really considered going into theatre as a career....besides, I heard several teachers say "You can't make a living working in theatre." I always really enjoyed math and science in school, so decided to pursue a career along those lines--I figured I'd end up either a pharmacist or a biochemical researcher.
I was working in the Chemistry Dept. at a liberal arts college and I got to do some scenic, props and lighting design work, and stage managed a bunch of dance concerts over several years. The turning point was one summer when I was hired to help design and build two shows for a small professional theatre company in the area. I was working my usual 40 hours/week in the Chemistry Department, and for nearly six weeks spent all my evenings and weekends (70-80 hours/week) working in the theatre (it was just the two of us building everything for these two shows!). I figured, after that, since I still very much enjoyed theatre work, I should think about doing it "for real".
I chewed on that for almost two years (what a crazy idea, giving up a good-paying, stable job with full benefits!) and decided that I wanted to try it. I was single, I could always fall back into chemistry if it didn't work out, and it was something that, when I was old & grey and in the nursing home, I would regret if I didn't try. (I had my scenic design work chosen twice to represent my region at the American College Theatre Festival design competition held at the Kennedy Center, so I think I did OK!)
I still enjoy science, and loved my job in chemistry right up to the end (I still keep in close contact with many of those colleagues). The biggest reason for my career change was what I call the "tangibility of the end-result": when I was the Chemistry Stockroom Manager and really nailed a lab prep, the lab instructor
*might* notice that the lab went especially smoothly; students in the lab certainly wouldn't notice or appreciate my efforts. Working in theatre there is tremendous satisfaction and pride in being able to point out to someone (or to yourself) that that gorgeous set started out as just a pile of lumber and paint, this fanciful furniture was smithed and welded out of steel by your own hands, and these bizarre fantasy costume designs came entirely out of your head!
Stuart at work |
II. What they think:
Do you find these fields have anything in common in terms of practical work circumstances?
Lenore: Some of the note taking I did as ASM when blocking was in flux was a little like keep track of experimental parameters. There's also a pretty high degree of individual responsibility.
Dallas: I do think there are many similarities between science and theatre. When you are rigging equipment over a stage you use physics. Lighting, and especially intelligent lighting is very much utilizing electrical engineering. Set construction uses a little bit of metallurgical engineering with the welding that is done. Draping and drafting costumes uses more engineering that I would have ever dreamed. I know I have learned a lot of things that were way more scientific than I thought I would ever need to know while working on shows, and I think my husband has worked on things that while not necessarily in theatre themselves can and often are being utilized in theatre work.
James: Absolutely there are relations between theatre and electrical engineering! Someone has to design the light and sound boards along with speakers, microphones, and lights. Every time my wife tells me about a new theatre innovation I'm quick to remark that we've been using that technology in the electronic world for years. As long as anything in theatre is done electronically the two fields will always be intertwined.
Brian: As a physicist-educator I feel a responsibility to communicate scientific ideas as well as deal with the impact and social responsibility and issue related to science. Many aspects of theatre can deal with the same subject matter.
Both place a high value on communication and both have a long history of having an impact on society. While education is often more didactic, many issues can be understood in a theatrical environment and can reach a wider and often different audience.
“Pierre and Marie,” Break a Leg Productions |
Allison: ABSOLUTELY!!! Theatre tech work is
all about math and physics and engineering! Rigging, bracing, framing angles...deciding how to build an elevated platform that can't have supports in the middle (because that space will be used for projections) but needs to be sturdy enough to hold a 10-piece orchestra including a piano!! I have also utilized my chemistry knowledge a fair amount, in such things as selecting adhesives to use to bond particular materials, how to make hydraulic/pneumatic effects devices work, choosing solvents...and knowing how to use these things safely! You have to have a solid understanding of the materials you're using, and be comfortable using your hands and working with tools. You have to be good at problem-solving and analysis. I am a better scenic designer because I am also a good technician -- I know how to build everything I design, and how to tweak the design to allow for more hidden bracing/rigging/etc. I think the best scenic designers are ones who are a hybrid of a visual artist + an architect.
Chip: Heck yeah! Both require you to solve myriad problems before becoming real. The restraints just make you more imaginative. How can I get this thing to work when I've got no time, no money, and very limited resources?
That moment of triumph and sheer joy when the thing finally works and the show finally works are identical to me. When you create something out of your own imagination that has never been done or seen before in all of history is MAGIC in the purest sense.
Charlie: Not a lot, basically. The real common area in my position is the fact that sound is a highly technical field and sound designers need to be extremely well grounded in acoustics to do good work. Emotionally there are way more differences, overall, and the typical scientist does not usually make a good theatre person (and vice versa).
JK: Could you go into a little more detail about that? Any examples come to mind?
Charlie: Generalizations are always incredibly tricky as you know.... I think what I mean to say in a very general sense is that scientists are always trying to find definitive answers using very precise experimental and research techniques and are extremely hesitant to make statements that aren't always fully backed up by years of painstaking research and which are confirmed by a number of tests and corroborated by other scientists they have collaborated with.
Theatre people who are adventuresome, try new and experimental techniques, bold and imaginative processes and venture into the unknown without knowing what the results may necessarily be are often the heroes of the industry. Sure, many of them have to be like scientists in that they should have some extremely good ideas about what might happen but the major difference is that the theatre practitioners' experiments are always in the form of brave new productions foisted upon the public as a fait accompli and are either lauded or criticized but they are hardly created in a laboratory environment using 'controlled' processed to determine the results. Indeed, the only way anyone can discover the results of theatrical experimentation is to expose them to the unsuspecting public! For scientists to do this with everything they try, such as new medicines, would be inexcusable, irresponsible and illegal!
Judy M: I think the academic computing environment had more in common with theater than the corporate environment. A lot of people were passionate and obsessed with their work. They put in long and non- traditional hours. They were creative.
I actually used to joke that the biggest difference is that theater projects have a definite beginning and ending, but computer projects never end.
Gioia: Both fields are creative, albeit in different ways. They both demand mastery of how to get the most out of one's creative intelligence. They both require investing a lot of time in process as opposed to product.
John: In very practical terms, probably not much. I suppose long hours are a common aspect, but most of the practical aspects are pretty different.
Do you find these fields have anything in common in any other sense? (for example - motivation or attitude, the kind of people that work in them, routine and hours invested, interpersonal relationships, end result, etc. etc.) Stuart: Gives you something to talk about at parties. Especially since so many of us have some science background...
Lenore: There's a good bit of "how do we actually do this nifty idea with what we have or can get" in both cases. I don't usually think of as much similarity as between mathematics and music.
Dallas: I think they are both difficult, and demanding, but in different ways. I'm often at the theatre early in the morning and leaving extremely late at night for weeks at a time for a show. Well my husband will do the same thing in his engine test facility. Educationally, I would say that science is more difficult, but only in the sense of having tougher classes. Theatre is more difficult in that you are not only trying to create art, but trying to meld science and art into one.
Allison: I've had many people comment about "what a huge change" it was for me to go from the Chemistry Stockroom to the Theatre Scene Shop. I tell them that mostly it's just the end product that is different - it's still an awful lot of the same skills being used: scheduling; training student workers; using power- and hand-tools; problem-solving; "detective work" - figuring out where to buy--or how to make--something you need (whether a piece of glassware, chemical compound, hardware, or a prop); budgeting; researching products online; placing orders over the telephone, playing plumber, trying to find more storage space, filing MSDS, doing inventory...
Also, the character-types that go into science is strikingly similar to the personalities that go into theatre design/tech....a fairly significant percentage tend to be on the edges of the bell curve of "normalcy" (i.e. geeks and dorks!)
Chip: As I have always been a practical scientist, as opposed to some fields like Math and Particle Physics, the reality of building and seeing it work is always the answer, not an equation.
One difference is the ability to place yourself inside a character. In Science, one must always be the scientist for credibility, but on stage the character will do things that "I" would never do. Not sure what that says about my real life, but there it is.
Charlie: Yes. Again, in my particular area of sound there is a great need for practitioners to know as much as possible about the technical aspects of their craft. Beyond that, the nature of the beast is essentially different. Theatre is more socially interactive and requires team and cooperative skills that many scientists do not have, although they can also be very useful (but not absolutely necessary, as they are in theatre).
(
JK: Many scientists might disagree with this!)
Gioia: I think there tends to be a lot of eccentricity in both theater and science people. Hours are erratic in both fields, and both kinds of work require one to be self-motivated.
(added later): About eccentricity - I've observed it being connected with brilliant
creative people in both science and the arts, but most especially so with mathematicians. I certainly don't know why that is. I wonder if math is appealing to some people because it is almost an otherworldly language that only a select few can communicate in? Perhaps it takes the pressure off having to communicate in other ways that feel more uncomfortable? Does something similar happen with theater artists too? There can be drive to communicate and behave in a dramatic way
all the time, even off stage, because it satisfies a certain need?
It's very fun to think on these things, but I suppose a psychologist would have better insight!
John Olson (Gioia’s husband): Both require tremendous dedication and discipline. Both require an analytical type of thinking as well as creativity, although the balance between those might differ between science and music. I think both science and music - and perhaps more obviously theater - deal at their core with truth. The search for truth drives both endeavors. In science, of course, the role of truth is pretty clear. In music, I believe it is important as well. I think that is why I love Bach, for example. His music is so profound, so right, that when listening to it, it seems as true as a physical law or a mathematical equation.
Do you think one is more difficult/demanding than the other? If so, how? Stuart: Science doesn't sell tickets a year ahead of time. My deadlines are much more fixed. But in the shop, most of my work is not very original, very little that I do could be considered new work or creative, in the sense that scientific work needs to be. I do novel and interesting things, but I doubt that much falls into the realm of NEW ideas.
Lenore: I think the concepts in physics are more demanding than those of theater, but the physical stamina and thinking on your feet is more demanding in theater than in physics. The contrast is really between always doing something new and having to figure out whether or not you are even right (more like the playwright than any other role in theater) and doing an entire series of things flawlessly (in theory) again and again. I'm not very good at repeating something to perfection which is one of the reasons I'm primarily a physicist and not primarily a musician. The pay is generally better to be a physicist, but it's really hard - if not impossible - to be a part-time physicist or to get in and out of the field.
Judy M: I enjoyed having both jobs. They use different parts of my brain.
JK: I WISH you could go into just a bit more detail about that.
Judy M: To write about a computer task or a piece of equipment, you have to understand it well enough to explain it. So there's a constant being forced to learn new things that you might not otherwise choose to learn, which feels like it stretches your brain. Maybe actors feel this way when they take on a role that's very different for them. In stage management, while each project is different and often lets you learn a lot about the subject of the play (Afghanistan, allergies, "Gone with the Wind," etc.) or learn new interpersonal skills, the general task remains the same. Although these days I have to learn to use a new sound program fairly often!
(and later she added:) I worked much harder (and for less money) stage managing than for my computer jobs.
JK: How come? Was it just harder work or was something about the atmosphere more conducive to working hard?
Judy M: I think a lot of it is simply the hours. Our union allows stage managers to work, for example, 6 days a week, 45 hours per week (not including set-up, clean-up, and paperwork). Some shows don't require that, but some do. In the computer documentation jobs I've had, I've never had to work hours like that. And, again in my own experiences, stage managing often takes place in a more chaotic environment and involves juggling more elements and personalities.
JK: I've noticed that in theater, it's often a life or death environment.
Judy M: Yeah, we are all affected by time pressures, and ideally by the self- imposed pressures of our own high standards, but it's really NOT life or death. And it helps to remember that. (Of course, there can be genuine safety issues in putting up and running a show, but I don't think that's what you meant here.)
Chip: Both require many hours of intense concentration away from the maddening crowd. For that one brief shining moment, you know what effort it took to get there. Nope, they are the same.
Brian: High performance and achievement goals can be equally demanding. Both require years of schooling and practice and feedback. In my case I have skills in the presentation and teaching of science but I am certainly not an actor or playwright. (I can perform within the context of a science lecture or seminar.) My wife is not schooled in science but can act and manage a theatre company.
Gioia: For me, math was more difficult because it went against my essential nature, which is to be more interested in people than data. I remember attending seminars and conferences, etc. and being absolutely fascinated by the math people, and less interested in the actual mathematics being done.
Is there anything else you have to say about this?Stuart: I think training in the sciences has a certain effect on how one approaches a problem, it forces both a systematic approach, while allowing the mind to seek unexpected connections that can bring novel techniques or materials into the solution.
Judy M has a mathematician husband:
JK: Does your husband have any opinions about any of this? (the difference between the two fields.)
Judy M: He always (well, since age 12) wanted to be a mathematician. He probably relates to the idea of people being driven to do something. This isn't specifically about theater people, but he's kind of defensive about the reactions of non-math/hard-science people to his job. They often say things like "you must be really smart" or "I hated math" or "I was terrible at math." Or they lose interest in him. Many theater people fall into this category. On the other hand, teaching is somewhat like performing, and he enjoys teaching. I think the biggest difference in the "fields" is that math (apart from teaching) is something you do alone, for the most part, and theater is something you must do with other people.
Chip: Like yourself, I have met many people puzzled by the desire to do both. It has never puzzled me. It's as natural as breathing. I just could not imagine my life without one or the other. I am now 67 and can't wait for the next audition.
Gioia: To me, working in either field is like working as an artist, just in different media. To me a mathematical proof is like a thought sculpture built from the poetry of pattern. To me a character is a body sculpture inspired by poetry, prose, situation.
There's a huge difference is how easily communicated the work is. Math can be so esoteric that only a select few people in the whole world can understand your research. Theater, for the most part, is an art form so communicative that people can understand it in a heartbeat.
III. In Sum….?
So are there two different kinds of people? Do these two fields attract essentially different types? It seems not. The one thing these people have in common is that most of them stumbled into both areas at a young age, and were not channeled into one or the other. The people speaking here are generally different from each other. And so it appears that science and theater each have something to offer to many different kinds of personalities. The technically minded gravitate to the more technical aspects of theater, but love it for its interpersonal aspects. Those with a more abstract or poetic frame of mind may gravitate to science and theater for the same reasons. The stories told here make it appear that the traditional division is artificial: there are many different kinds of people, and not just two categories. And there are many aspects to science and to theater, as well, so that each person may find his place in a variety of areas.
