Saturday, December 17, 2005


Over at "Theatre Conversation and Political Frustration" (see sidebar), MattJ is presiding over a lively conversation about "What is Text?" In the comments, I came across Matt Freeman chiding academics again. As an academic myself, I am always slightly offended but more baffled by such slights.

Freeman writes: "I'll say that I have been rightly accused, on occasion, of being skeptical of academia and theory. Essentially, most theories are applied, as far as I have seen, AFTER something is put into practice. Artists are lumped together by a theoretician, and after that, other artists ascribe themselves to a theory." In a later post in which he suggests that academia is "mental masturbation," Freeman writes, "Is it possible that what happens in academia is in response to what appears on a stage, and that academia comes AFTER action, not before? That academia is not a prime mover?"

The answer, of course, is yes. It is possible that academic discourse is mental masturbation, in the same way that it is possible that dramatist-director-actor discourse is mental masturbation. There is a dose of that in academia, and in the "professional" theatre world.

It is also true that sometimes theory occurs after the fact. For instance, it might be said that Martin Esslin created the Theatre of the Absurd as a style with the stroke of a pen, much to the chagrin of some of those who found themselves lumped together. But what he did was allow us to see a common element in disparate artists, and he also created a vocabulary for understanding those writers.

But it used to be that theory accompanied the work of art, and artists did it themselves. Emile Zola theorized about Naturalism in literature and theatre while he was writing Naturalistic novels and plays; Filippo Marinetti theorized about Futurism while he was creating Futurist performances; Brecht theorized about Epic Theatre while he was writing plays using those techniques. But American artists have been notably silent over the past 50 years or so. Schechner did some theorizing, Foreman continues to do so, Herbert Blau also wrote a lot of theory. But when it comes down to it, I can't think of any American artists who have gone on record promoting a new approach to the theatre.

Into the vacuum steps the academic, and why not? Where else are the ideas to come from? From what I can tell, making a living as a theatre artist is now so difficult that there simply isn't time to think about broader issues, much less write about them. And even if there were time, where would the ideas be published? American Theatre provides a platform for ideas to some extent, but after that? Academics, even when they are teaching many classes as I do, do have some time and resources to do this work. So why the hostility? Why not embrace academia as the Research and Development arm of the art form, the think tank for theatre? Looked at this way, academia becomes a subsidized space for experimentation and the extension of the art form.

Sure, a large amount of academic writing is indecipherable and irrelevant -- if I never read another article in Theatre Journal it will be too soon -- but with a little encouragement, academia might be persuaded to strengthen its relationship with the professional theatre world and start to serve a useful purpose.

A question like "what is text?" may seem overly abstract, but the struggle to answer such a question can lead to new thoughts about how to create theatre. Conversations begin with large questions and lead to concrete ideas which then lead to new large questions. Surely Brecht's plays were enhanced by his theories, and his theories by his plays. Conversation is circular.

I know that Freeman is expressing a commonly held opinion about academia that to some extent has been richly earned, and my feathers are only slightly ruffled. What I want to offer is my help, my energy, my ideas, my creativity, my pen. I'd like to be a member of the club. And so, to that end, I call on theatre artists to ask the question "how might academia help me in my art?" Yes, I know: do my plays, hire me to guest direct or adjunct, but that is mainly an institutional thing. Think beyond that -- how might a lone academic lend a hand?


MattJ said...

And what about the diffusion of information to the population en masse? If you don't live in NYC, you're not seeing all this new stuff, you depend on who's writing about it, and it can't just be a series of reviews. 1) For the reasons we have all talked about over the last month or so 2) The review doesn't talk about process.

Academics research how theatre artists create and what the implications of such a creation are. Often, hard as it may seem to believe, this conversation is supremely aided by also talking about a Derrida, a Marx, a Hegel, a Foucault.

And not just NYC, to be sure. Lots of academic work looks at theatre artists in regional theatre around the country doing really interesting things that nobody (in NY or elsewhere) is going to here about without that research. Once again we get my "theatre of perspective" which I am so keen on, maybe it deserves a whole post of its own...

Meyerhold said once "There is no danger in imitation for the young artist; it is an almost inevitable stage." Academia helps us find, really think about, and respond to new and fruitful ideas happening in the world of theatre.

Anonymous said...

Most of the academics I know go to the theatre much less often than me. And I'd have a lot more time for them if I felt that they actually wanted ordinary people -and not just other academics - to read their work. Academics make a living, but they shouldn't kid themselves that what they write is being read by the population en masse, or that it's all that important to those us who are engaged in making theatre.

DL said...

Where else are the ideas to come from? From what I can tell, making a living as a theatre artist is now so difficult that there simply isn't time to think about broader issues, much less write about them. And even if there were time, where would the ideas be published?

Oh did that hit home.... in a big way !
It's the same reason I don't have time to send out my plays, the same reason I don't have time to look for an agent etc... but there comes a point , where one has to make time. It doesn't matter how. We just need to do it. Because buying in to this logic is taking ourselves out of society and down the path of art as artefact.

Freeman said...

For the record, I'm not the one that said Mental Masturbation first. It was the other Matt. Everyone gets us confused.

Think Again: Funding and Budgets in the Arts

Every once in a while, I think I'll post a link or two to posts written earlier in the life of Theatre Ideas that seem worth revisiting ...