The major tenant of improv is "yes and". Initially this is an effective mantra cultivating acceptance, support, and collaboration. As performers gain experience and confidence the strict adherence to this philosophy becomes a liability for interpersonal communication and creative output.
Off stage the "yes and" credo can cause reticence for team members to speak up, stand up for themselves within the group, and voice personal wants or discomforts. This mentality can lead to a kind of stagnant apathy because everyone is thinking of "the good of the group" and doesn't want to "rock the boat" no decisions get made and problems get ignored until people are so fed-up they blow-up or quit. People make a lot of unnecessary concessions because they want to "yes and" their fellow performers/friends, going along to get along is prevalent. Being blindly agreeable is only accidentally beneficial, doubly so in a creative setting.
If something is bothering you artistically or personally you should voice it, do so in a calm and open way, I'm not advocating temper or slander, but I am advocating direct communication and letting concerns be known. "Yes and" does not mean do whatever someone else says, it means listen and collaborate, your personal feelings and opinions should not be sacrificed simply because they run counter to the perceived groups. Individuals make up a group and each individual needs to have a say.
On stage, after a certain point, the literal application of "yes and" becomes unnecessary. "Yes and" is an idea, a style, a mode of performance. There comes a point when actually saying it is no longer necessary and where doing so sacrifices the integrity of the performance. Recently I've noticed a lot of affable scenes. One person comes in with a point of view, an angle, and their scene partner is totally agreeable. And totally boring.
There's this idea that some players get trapped in, that whoever speaks first has ownership over the scene and they simply agree with whatever the person says. In order to build a scene, to truly collaborate and support, that other person has to contribute content. They don't have to say "yes and" they don't have to have overt(i.e. saying "yesyesyes") agreement, they have to "yes" the idea and "and" it further. That can be done through any number of ways- specific details, physical play, argument, emotion, back story, stakes etc. That isn't done by simply nodding at your scene partner and agreeing with what they are saying. That puts all the impetus on one person to invent everything about the scene and its boring to watch. Two people discovering and building a scene is fascinating, one person inventing a scene while the other person affirms their inventions bores me to fucking tears.
"Yes and" is a hard and fast rule when learning improv. But once learned it becomes mailable, it can be bent and twisted and tied and tucked. Once understood fundamentally its effective application is much more ethereal. Acceptance of others ideas(which does not necessarily mean accomdation of), honesty, and openess, these are the cultivated traits not blind obedience, assimilation, and passive agreement.
Groups are made up of individuals and individuality must be maintained and expressed. Only then can a truly cohesive and strong group emerge.
