tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post115498720220696908..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: The Distorted Mirror (Bah! Part 2)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1156231115255988522006-08-22T03:18:00.000-04:002006-08-22T03:18:00.000-04:00OMFG!!!I've never seen such tenacious self-righteo...OMFG!!!<BR/><BR/>I've never seen such tenacious self-righteousness on display since kindergarten. <BR/><BR/>Lighten up people! This was an interesting thought experiment, not the destruction of the state of Israel, uh, I mean Lebanon...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155090602601393162006-08-08T22:30:00.000-04:002006-08-08T22:30:00.000-04:00I was quite amused by the Sokal affair (and the bo...I was quite amused by the Sokal affair (and the book, for all its flaws, did make some interesting points about the ignorant use of science in the humanities). I don't think Scott was doing anything as intelligent as that.<BR/><BR/>He was just saying things he's said before, like <A HREF="http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2006/02/demonizing-middle-class.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-on-in-yer-face-theatre.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://theatreideas.blogspot.com/2006/02/and-point-is.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. If perhaps in a slightly more aggressive mode. The howls produced then were along the lines of, read the playwrights before you condemn them! You're misrepresenting what they do! So, what's new?<BR/><BR/>Yes, it proves, as world politics is proving at the moment, that aggression begets aggression. Like many people, I'm not sure what is to be gained from this "lesson". Mainly, it seems, a whole lot of bad feeling. I'm kind of with Matt on this one, really, with his shrug. There seems to me to be a whole lot of things to be upset about at present, the destruction of Lebanon, say, and it's depressing that so much energy can be sidelined by sophistry that "proves" nothing except that art can be made utterly meaningless. I fear that Scott has demeaned us all.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155055671583148252006-08-08T12:47:00.000-04:002006-08-08T12:47:00.000-04:00I know why I gave a shit, John. You're right: Scot...I know why I gave a shit, John. You're right: Scott's students are reading this. And, as an educator, with memberships in professional associations who also may read this blog, he can have a modest effect on the way that theater is taught and thought about in the university, and those theater practitioners that UNCA turns out every graduation day. In his stated desire that theater "R&D" should take place in universities and colleges, Scott in a sense is marginalizing other innovative theater taking place outside the college gates.<BR/><BR/>Truth is, it's not a bad idea. But stunts like this make me profoundly uncomfortable about the wisdom of implementing this idea in any way. Scott doesn't represent all theater educators and teachers, of course. But it's happened before, in other disciplines: with <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair" REL="nofollow">the Alan Sokal affair</A> a few years ago, for example. This recent contretemps does not have the far-reaching implications of the Sokal case, of course. But the ethical questions remain relevant, and I hope Scott will discuss these among his students and colleagues who read this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155053726481837042006-08-08T12:15:00.000-04:002006-08-08T12:15:00.000-04:00John Branch brings up an interesting point. I wage...John Branch brings up an interesting point. I wager that even string theorists though, can get hot under the collar. And some people can talk about religion, but if the news is any indication, more people like to wage war over religion.<BR/><BR/>I think it's natural and human to defend something that you love. Whether you trust that love or not. <BR/><BR/>The one thing that Scott has succeeded in doing is making all of us jerks. All of us, Scott. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure his students are reading these posts, and he points to the tirades as proof of some impossibly full of itself New York theater scene. To that I offer a classic quote from literature: whatevs.<BR/><BR/>The sad thing is that Scott's desire to shake people up utterly obscures the points he's been trying to make for months. And they are very reasonable points. Multi-media theater aside, he's asking the community to think and explore new business models for the theater. Theater was always about selling tickets, and 2006 is no exception.<BR/><BR/>I suggest buffets.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, on the topic of jerks: this bitchfest has just drained me. So I offer an apology for going off half-cocked, and then I'll slink away and ask myself why I gave a shit in the first place. <BR/><BR/>I am sorry for paying more attention to your scorching sizzle, than to your steak. I am sorry for lobbing hand grenades at you, Scott. In the past we've parried to absolutely no good. It's clearly something I need to address. <BR/><BR/>The shame will settle in shortly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155049159166599792006-08-08T10:59:00.000-04:002006-08-08T10:59:00.000-04:00So, because I cracked a joke, I'm a self-congratul...So, because I cracked a joke, I'm a self-congratulatory backslapper? Wow, do I evre not agree with that characterization of myself. <BR/><BR/>What should we say here -- "Ya got me, guy. Wow, I've learned *so much* about theater and life from you"...? <BR/><BR/>What I've learned is that you think you're superior to the rest of the blogosphere by unwillingly tricking people to participate in your "experiment". <BR/><BR/>Must be pretty lonely at the top.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155047390488164482006-08-08T10:29:00.000-04:002006-08-08T10:29:00.000-04:00How insecure are you all? I'm a playwright; I've ...How insecure are you all? I'm a playwright; I've been up and I've been down. My work has been praised and damned and the kind of theatre I believe in has been celebrated and condemned. I've never felt personally threatened by anything said or written. I find something terribly sad in the vitriolic responses to the BAH blog. Methinks you all doth protest too much and it leads me to suspect your trust in your own work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155039836848546752006-08-08T08:23:00.000-04:002006-08-08T08:23:00.000-04:00I think we all have a little too much time on our ...I think we all have a little too much time on our hands.<BR/>Go out and live life. Create. Breathe. Reflect...but only for a few minutes at a time through out the day.<BR/><BR/>Buddha Cowboy - NYC<BR/><BR/>P.S. - Based on your post, am I to understand some of these folks had you as a professor ? IS that why they were so upset ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155037103428233622006-08-08T07:38:00.000-04:002006-08-08T07:38:00.000-04:00I have to admit that so far I've only skimmed Scot...I have to admit that so far I've only skimmed Scott's post and the comments, but a few things occur to me already. One, it's true, but no surprise, that "provocation sells." Broadly speaking, this is one reason for the idea that conflict is the essence of drama (an idea I don't entirely agree with). Two, sometimes when you shake things up, all that comes out are hornets. Three (this may be fitting in light of Scott's original reference, on Sunday, to the sciences), I notice that on the physics blogs people can criticize string theory, or write about religion from the perspective of a scientist, or do a number of other contentious things, without getting personal. I'm not sure what this means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155020069602877522006-08-08T02:54:00.000-04:002006-08-08T02:54:00.000-04:00For those not in the antipodes - The show Ensemble...For those not in the antipodes - The show Ensemble is talking about above is <I>Small Metal Objects</I>, by Back to Back Theatre, a theatre created by its disabled members. I saw it at last year's Melbourne Festival, review <A HREF="http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com/2005/10/miaf-green-small-metal-objects.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, for anyone interested (scroll down). It was beautiful. And, yes, provocative in all the subtle ways that Scott says contemporary theatre isn't...Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155010035832855712006-08-08T00:07:00.000-04:002006-08-08T00:07:00.000-04:00Leave it to stage managers like kim and the laity ...Leave it to stage managers like kim and the laity like r.b.d. to make the most salient points.<BR/><BR/>But, in any event, I'm left wondering just whose "anger, dismissal, rejection, and ... retrenchment of long-held values" we're left with after all this, assuming (if this isn't another experiment) that this second post is the sincere demonstration of his intent.<BR/><BR/>Scott seems to think it's the blogosphere's. Actually, I think it's his. Scott's made no secret of his feeling that a theater that provokes a community is a theater that insults and alienates it, and he feels angry at theater artists for taking that particular tack (despite the idea that theatrical provocation is a textured thing, not as simple as he sometimes seems to think). Certainly Scott's dismissed and rejected as childish certain aspects of this provocative theater. And despite the wide-ranging responses to his posts -- some of which agreed with a few of his points, others of which agreed with others -- if anybody's values seem to be retrenched, they're his. He still desires, apparently, to be proven wrong: "And I welcome any comments, here or elsewhere, that will demonstrate that the response does not exhibit those characteristics."<BR/><BR/>Well, fair's fair. I'd welcome a response from him that demonstrates that his original posts did <I>not</I> exhibit those very same characteristics that he attaches to his interlocutors: a reponse that arises not from anger, dismissal, rejection and unremitting stubbornness, but from an acceptance of responses, yes, even to that very first post of his, which he now has announced was insincere, dishonest and deliberately ignorant.<BR/><BR/>Scott describes himself as a man who "err[s] on the side of NOT stepping in and expressing my opinion, but rather allowing them to wrestle through things together." All right. Here's your chance, buddy. We're all listening. What do you really think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155009157028156522006-08-07T23:52:00.000-04:002006-08-07T23:52:00.000-04:00Well, then, sounds to me that your premise was pre...Well, then, sounds to me that your premise was pretty badly flawed, Mr. Walters.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a theater artist and I don't have a theater blog. I'm just someone who likes interesting theater. (I'm also part of what most people would consider to be the middle class, by the way.)<BR/><BR/>From here, you sure don't sound like much of an outsider. You teach theater, right? And you are directly involved in productions from time to time, right? And you blog about theater, right? And it sounds like you know these theater bloggers and have had serious discussions with them in the past, right? <BR/><BR/>If all of this is true, then your claims of being an outsider seem pretty disingenuous, and your little experiment seems like little more than bad-faith trick designed to allow you to mock a lot of people while claiming to have proved a pretty silly point. <BR/><BR/>Of course, something that you yourself characterize in your reply above as an "attack" - whether it's from inside a community or outside of one - is going to provoke anger. That's why they call it an "attack" and not a "hug". <BR/><BR/>Was this really your whole point, or am I missing something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155008838684363682006-08-07T23:47:00.000-04:002006-08-07T23:47:00.000-04:00If an outsider kicks me or one of my friends in th...If an outsider kicks me or one of my friends in the nuts, and then says "see everybody suddenly wants to see whats going to happen next..."<BR/><BR/>The problem with your experiment and it's "success" is that it is a direct represntation of the disregard and disgust you have for the very same people you might have tried to inspire.<BR/><BR/>This experiment was done with malice, with vitrol and now you get to sit back smuggly and say I told you so...<BR/><BR/>You did prove that I might attack someone who kicks me in the nuts, even if after they say, "I didn't want to crush your nuts...I just wanted to prove I could make you mad!"Devilvethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425758108288436683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155008383840506872006-08-07T23:39:00.000-04:002006-08-07T23:39:00.000-04:00r. b. -- it was done to illustrate a point: that a...<I>r. b. -- it was done to illustrate a point: that attacks on a community from someone outside the community (in my case, an academic among artists; in the rest of the world, artists among the middle class) provoke a predictable and consistent response: anger, dismissal, rejection, and a retrenchment of long-held values. So far, I seem to be batting a thousand. It isn't about my blog, it isn't about Technorati rankings, it isn't about hit counts -- none of them matter in any way. It was solely about the idea. And I welcome any comments, here or elsewhere, that will demonstrate that the response does not exhibit those characteristics.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm a stage manager who was unaware of the existance of this whole mess until recently. Now, it's been observed that stage managers have a knack for being practical and getting down to brass tacks. So it's an instinct I rely on when wading into the middle of frays like this.<BR/><BR/>And, honestly, after reading your initial post and your followup, that getting-down-to-brass-tacks instinct is telling me that this particular follow-up post, and your claims that this was all an "experiment," sound an awful lot like the school bully calling you stupid and then saying, "I was just kidding, can't you take a joke?"<BR/><BR/>I didn't buy it from the school bully then, I don't buy it here. It sounds more like you took an unpopular position, were challenged on it, and are now trying to pass it all off as a joke; I tend to mistrust people that can't hold on to their own opinions. I also tend to mistrust the opinions of people that retract them claiming it was all some "social experiment." After all, who's to say that you won't later turn around and claim your retraction wasn't itself some kind of esoteric theater experiment you read about in an even more esoteric tome somewhere?<BR/><BR/>Conducting such social experiments serves only to alienate your readers from you, and it's just a pity that that's not the lesson you learned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155006435590479062006-08-07T23:07:00.000-04:002006-08-07T23:07:00.000-04:00Oh boy. Who knew? I mean, who could really know?Oh boy. Who knew? I mean, who could really know?Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01183078884824734105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155005738284365042006-08-07T22:55:00.000-04:002006-08-07T22:55:00.000-04:00r. b. -- it was done to illustrate a point: that a...r. b. -- it was done to illustrate a point: that attacks on a community from someone outside the community (in my case, an academic among artists; in the rest of the world, artists among the middle class) provoke a predictable and consistent response: anger, dismissal, rejection, and a retrenchment of long-held values. So far, I seem to be batting a thousand. It isn't about my blog, it isn't about Technorati rankings, it isn't about hit counts -- none of them matter in any way. It was solely about the idea. And I welcome any comments, here or elsewhere, that will demonstrate that the response does not exhibit those characteristics.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155001244504076752006-08-07T21:40:00.000-04:002006-08-07T21:40:00.000-04:00How many of those hits, which are now well over 50...<I>How many of those hits, which are now well over 500, will return in future days, do you think? Not many, I suspect. They are drawn by the smell of blood, which is not a particularly good way to create an ongoing audience -- with a blog or a theatre.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, if you <I>know</I> that pointless provocation is no way to build an ongoing audience - for a theater or a blog - then why exactly did you undertake this little experiment in the first place? Are you <I>trying</I> to drive readers away so that you can later complain that people are only drawn by pointless provocation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154998631796819372006-08-07T20:57:00.000-04:002006-08-07T20:57:00.000-04:00Joshua, can I make this any clearer: THE ORIGINAL ...Joshua, can I make this any clearer: THE ORIGINAL POST WAS A PHONY. QUIT ARGUING WITH THE ORIGINAL POST. Believe me, if there was any way for me to take you up on your offer and bring you and George and Matt and any other blogger who wanted to come down for a season of plays, I WOULD DO IT IN A HEARTBEAT. It would definitely be the most exciting season my department has seen EVER. It would be the kind of theatre education that would be truly, truly valuable -- in fact, invaluable. Having you each teaching courses in your specialty, and having a series of public conversations would truly be exciting. Hell, you could devote one entire evening to hammering me, for all I care. I want my students to question everything, including everything I tell them. Do not assume, as many have, that because I express strong opinions that I pass them off as God's truth and brook no dissent from my students. Ask George, Matt, and Isaac, who have been graciously hosting one of my students on his visit to New York, what he told them about me -- I suspect he would tell you that I often err on the side of NOT stepping in and expressing my opinion, but rather allowing them to wrestle through things together. I say that because that particular student came to me at the end of the semester with just such a complaint -- he wanted me to take greater control. I refused.<BR/><BR/>Ben, yes it is an interesting contradiction. How many of those hits, which are now well over 500, will return in future days, do you think? Not many, I suspect. They are drawn by the smell of blood, which is not a particularly good way to create an ongoing audience -- with a blog or a theatre. How many of those who showed up for "Corpus Christi" became permanent subscribers? How many who will show up for "Rachel Corrie" will be there for the long haul? It will be interesting to watch, though -- my prediction: ultimately, and quickly, my hit count will fall well below my original monthly average of 45. Your other question is a good one: "Boal attempts to turn the spectator into what he calls a "spec-actor", with greater awareness of the choices they can make. And here?" Here there is an opportunity, through reflection and discussion in the blogosphere, for people to consider what has transpired and its relevance to the theatrical world. Many, indeed most, will find nothing of value, which is fine. But each impassioned condemnation I receive reinforces my point: that attack leads to rejection, not change.<BR/><BR/>Would Boal approve of the way I used his technique? Probably not. And I am certain that Brecht would not approve of the ways his techniques have been used, either. Oh, well -- Shakespeare probably wouldn't like contemporary productions of his plays either. It is largely irrelevant.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154997901960423732006-08-07T20:45:00.000-04:002006-08-07T20:45:00.000-04:00Yep. Disingenuous. Your selective quoting doesn't ...Yep. Disingenuous. Your selective quoting doesn't demonstrate that people were actually angry because you had NO argument, not because you were criticising what they were doing as an "outsider" (c'mom, Scott, you're no more or less an "outsider" than I am, we're all outsiders here). If you had come up with an interesting critique, the response would have been different. <BR/><BR/>You clearly think that contemporary theatre is only about ignorantly abusing the audience. The reason why people think that you clearly haven't seen any (aside from the fact that you never mention seeing any) is that you seem to have no idea what, in all its diversity, it actually seeks to do.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154996733672242762006-08-07T20:25:00.000-04:002006-08-07T20:25:00.000-04:00First, you claim that theatre artists' love of pro...First, you claim that theatre artists' love of provocation has led to the flight of audiences from the medium. You then go on to bemoan the fact that your own experiment in provocation has increased your blog's audience ten-fold. I find that contradictory.<BR/><BR/>As far as Invisible Theatre goes, Boal's objective is to allow audiences to realise that their actions can have an effect upon the drama before them. The aim is to empower the participants, to help them realise the transformations of which they are capable of effecting in their communities and societies. In your post, all I read is a finger-wag in a style not dissimilar to the original, alleged experiment.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes when we believe we see a distorted image in the mirror, we blame the mirror. I'm not sure that the mirror is the problem here. Throughout this blog you take issue with what you believe is a problematic, aggressive stance taken by contemporary theatre - particularly the word "fuck" being uttered and with sex acts onstage - and for you the meaning of any of these instances ends right there. As if the word, "fucking" in a play like Simon Stephens's Country Music is only there so that "fucking" can be uttered, as if the disaster of taste that this might bring in weighs so heavily that it crushes all other possible connections and relationships within the work, and between the work and the audience. The irony is, what you (unjustly) accuse the In-Yer-Face plays and much of contemporary theatre of is what you have done here:<BR/><BR/>"I crafted my post very carefully in an attempt to gore as many oxes as possible."<BR/><BR/>With your limited insight into what you abhor, you parody the image; the cavorting AND the distortion belong to you. This is no Invisible Theatre as per Boal. The provocation is not linked to any other aim but... provocation. Boal attempts to turn the spectator into what he calls a "spec-actor", with greater awareness of the choices they can make. And here?<BR/><BR/>This is not an intellectual experiment but a poorly executed practical joke, and you're taking a fairly strange and long time to dissect the frog.Ben Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16654820455368893078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154996370547712392006-08-07T20:19:00.000-04:002006-08-07T20:19:00.000-04:00Unless you're a fictional character, Scott, and I ...Unless you're a fictional character, Scott, and I understand from the student you asked me to introduce to the New York theater scene that you aren't, I can't buy that either. And if you're being provocative, then you should be careful of what you might provoke, before the fact. If this is your understanding of Boal's aesthetic and social mission, maybe it's a good thing you aren't a theatre artist.<BR/><BR/>See, I've spent literally hours, days, weeks, months, years (not to mention thousands of dollars of my own money) trying to build a theater in which I hold a profound belief, for which I've tried to build an informed, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually well-laid foundation. I believe it the wellspring of my labor, of my life. And many others are doing the same thing. For you to provoke, as you claim to do honestly at first, then to revoke that assumption of your honesty (which I've never had reason to question in the past), well ... art isn't a game. Neither is academics. It has profound implications. And I take it seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154995473232870922006-08-07T20:04:00.000-04:002006-08-07T20:04:00.000-04:00No, George, I don't see it. My initial post was t...No, George, I don't see it. My initial post was theatre in exactly the same way that your plays are theatre -- a fiction created to make a point. When you put words that you personally find offensive into the mouths of your characters, does that make you intellectually dishonest? When Wallace Shawn wrote <I>Aunt Dan and Lemon</I> and made a pretty good defense of some pretty heinous political ideas, was he being intellectually dishonest? When Anna Deavere Smith speaks the words of racists, is she being intellectually dishonest? Is Augusto Boal's Theatre of the Oppressed, which he has taught to theatre people around the world as a way of promoting critical thinking, and has won acclaim worldwide, intellectually dishonest when he has actors say and do things that are morally wrong, and when he doesn't announce that his play is a play? Or is it OK if it is done to other people?<BR/><BR/>I understand your anger, and I'm not saying I wouldn't feel the same way in your shoes. I think what you did on your blog as far as urging emails to my chair is beneath you.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I do think "this so-called provocation a legitimate examination of the theater and its place in the community."<BR/><BR/>Don, believe me, I don't see myself as a martyr -- one has to suffer to earn that moniker. I was simply drawing a parallel: that outsiders who attack a community without being a part of that community are usually rejected and distrusted. Artists have proudly assumed that role for upward of a hundred years, and the reaction has been predictable.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154993796272965332006-08-07T19:36:00.000-04:002006-08-07T19:36:00.000-04:00But lies are lies, Scott, deliberate or not. To sa...But lies are lies, Scott, deliberate or not. To say that this is not about the content of the post, as you do, is precisely where this disingenuousness, this dishonesty, lies.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to have your pay, no matter what it is, but I don't resent it. Envy, maybe. Especially when I see that you consider this so-called provocation a legitimate examination of the theater and its place in the community. Many of the theater artists I know are very close to the communities in which they work, respect them, are respected by them. 2-Headed Calf, for example, does volunteer work in their community in return for rehearsal space. I could go on.<BR/><BR/>So intellectual dishonesty is intellectual dishonesty. It's indefensible, especially in a university setting (let alone the community of the arts). Can't you see that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154993233228164742006-08-07T19:27:00.000-04:002006-08-07T19:27:00.000-04:00the level of trust for me within the theatre blogg...<I>the level of trust for me within the theatre blogging community will have been diminished by this, in exactly the same way that the trust and valuing of artists has been diminished in the larger community of our towns, cities, and nation.</I><BR/><BR/>It is the rare statement that both makes me laugh out loud and drop my jaw. Tread lightly on the hallowed ground, Scott, or we'll be forced to pull you off of that crucifix, buddy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154992827691406732006-08-07T19:20:00.000-04:002006-08-07T19:20:00.000-04:00George, arguing about whether my points about inno...George, arguing about whether my points about innovation are "true" is missing the point -- the post was <I>intentionally designed</I> to be provocative without regard to "truth," "accuracy," or support. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE POST.<BR/><BR/>Actually, George, what I am saying is that all communities, including the theatre blogosphere of artists, reacts to attacks by people it considers outsiders in the same way: hostility, rejection, and retrenchment of traditional values. This is exactly what happened in this case, and it is precisely what happens with traditional audiences when confronted with artistic attacks. I don't find this behavior self-serving; I agree that "It's collegiality, casual respect for each other despite our differences."<BR/><BR/>On a sidenote, George, your resentment of what you call my "handsome pay," and your complete over-estimation of the amount of money available at universities such as mine shows an ignorance equal to that which you accuse me of. The complete annual budget for the Drama Department in which I work (and I am not the chair, by the way), is a little over $20,000. That covers everything from production costs to equipment to copying and travel. The Arts and Ideas Program that I head, and to which you refer in your post, is a general education program that serves non-majors and has an annual budget of around $8000. While I am not going to share my annual salary here, I can assure you that it is far less than "handsome." In fact, in order to make ends meet, I teach night classes at a prison, and summer school in the summer.<BR/><BR/>Don, I also applaud you for not taking the "bait" -- there are always a few in every community who resist. And I agree with your characterization of the salability of provocation. The point is that, unlike many have asserted, provocation is not a sign of artistic purity or value. Nor, as this test might show, is it particularly effective in changing attitudes.<BR/><BR/>I also suspect that your last point is true -- that the level of trust for me within the theatre blogging community will have been diminished by this, in exactly the same way that the trust and valuing of artists has been diminished in the larger community of our towns, cities, and nation.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1154992766944596572006-08-07T19:19:00.000-04:002006-08-07T19:19:00.000-04:00Distorted mirror on the wall, who is the cleverest...Distorted mirror on the wall, who is the cleverest blogger of them all? Why, it's Scott Walters, that tricky devil. <BR/><BR/>I am one of those 424 who came to this blog only via links from blogs that I actually do read. Provocation may sell, but a one-time hit is hardly a "sale." I can't speak for the other 423, but I'm not sold, and I certainly haven't seen any reason for a return visit.<BR/><BR/>By the way, if you're just looking to up your hit count with some pointless provocation, I understand that nudity is a big internet draw. And, hey, wouldn't "The Nude Professor" be a great name for a blog?Blogmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00336760749162342125noreply@blogger.com