tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post2870371893186341275..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: Offending the AudienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-43000155800402927732009-04-21T12:39:00.000-04:002009-04-21T12:39:00.000-04:00Nazi farms?
"Mine Führer! Ze first asparagus of s...Nazi farms?<br /><br />"Mine Führer! Ze first asparagus of spring haz arrived! Ja! Izt ze pasty pale kind! Your favorite!"Chris Ashworthhttp://chrisashworth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-82829656665882483102009-04-21T12:20:00.000-04:002009-04-21T12:20:00.000-04:00Actually, we weren't talking about Nazis, we were ...Actually, we weren't talking about Nazis, we were talking about a work of art made as propaganda, one that everybody would recognize as such. So the kneejerk Nazi comment is less applicable.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-16709668150070873282009-04-21T11:31:00.000-04:002009-04-21T11:31:00.000-04:00Sorry, Chris. But there must be other things to ta...Sorry, Chris. But there must be other things to talk about besides Nazis.<br /><br />For example: farms.Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01183078884824734105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-43481150862309195162009-04-20T22:21:00.000-04:002009-04-20T22:21:00.000-04:00"Is art of a piece with all human acts, or is it s..."Is art of a piece with all human acts, or is it something categorically different from everything else, a Very Special Thing, done by Very Special People, as Scott so aptly put it?"<br /><br />How about a Very Special Thing, done by whoever up and does it? That'd be my response.Paul Rekkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877967547670893967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-16449835763000865132009-04-20T22:11:00.000-04:002009-04-20T22:11:00.000-04:00Sorry I've been absent for a couple days. As of la...Sorry I've been absent for a couple days. As of last Saturday, I'm in tech for A Man for All Seasons, opening this Friday in Baltimore.<br /><br />I think the "hope" thread came from my list of some of my goals as an artist:<br /><br />"-Give people hope<br />-Inspire them to a morally higher level of behavior (more compassionate, more truthful, etc.)<br />-Increase a sense of empathy for others<br />-Celebrate the beauty and goodness in the world"<br /><br />I don't see this list as a checklist, for a piece of art to satisfy. "Inspires hope?" "Check." "Promotes a particular moral stance?" "Check." "You know, maybe we should add more 'celebration of beauty and goodness.'" "OK."<br /><br />The above goals are several purposes which a piece of art can serve, or if you'd rather, effects it can have. And I am by no means advocating sitting down before work and saying to oneself, "I want to convince people that honesty is the best policy," and then figuring out how to write a play with that message (though good art can be made through that process). I think, however, such goals are more often accomplished through artistic choices of form and content. And any artist's artistic choices are going to come out of his worldview, by which I mean nothing more than that an artist's artistic choices are related to the choices he makes in other areas of his life, and what he believes to be true about the world.<br /><br />For example, if you're a DADAist who finds little to no value in reason, you are not going to choose to mount an Aristotelian tragedy in which a tight sequence of cause-and-effect is indispensable to the art. Or, if you do choose to use the content of a Greek tragedy, you are going to present it in such a way as to debunk Aristotelian notions of the necessity of cause-and-effect.<br /><br />If I believe that hope is one of the three greatest virtues, and if I further believe that hope exists for each one of us, and for the world, and that in the end good will conquer evil, and virtue, even unseen virtue, will be rewarded and wickedness, even unseen wickedness, will be punished--If, as I say, I believe in hope, I will not choose to mount a play in which the playwright makes it clear that he believes the state of the world to be such that there is no hope, and all is irredeemably depraved. Not because I believe that playwright is a bad person, or a bad playwright, but because I believe he is saying something that isn't true. And as both an artist and a human being, why would I want to promote an idea that isn't true?<br /><br />We're running into this kind of worldview issue with the production of A Man for All Seasons I'm in. The way you present the play, and the way you play St. Thomas More, differs depending on whether you believe More was a hero, or a fool. Does it become a story about a man who was destroyed by his own inability to compromise and see the signs of progress, or is it a story about a man who demonstrated the virtues of loyalty, truth, and integrity better than almost any of us have? What you want the audience to go away thinking about - and which arguments you want them to remember most strongly - influences how you present the play, or what choices you make about your character. How many artists are neutral when they create art? How many would want to be, or could be?<br /><br />I think what we seem to be divided about is whether art, like all other human endeavours, is subject to morality (or even whether all human endeavours are subject to that law). Is art of a piece with all human acts, or is it something categorically different from everything else, a Very Special Thing, done by Very Special People, as Scott so aptly put it?<br /><br />I myself am of Scott's belief that the setting of Art and Artists upon a pedestal is a mistake that needs to be rectified by reminding the artist of his identity as a member of a community, and his responsibility to that community. The humblest fisherman pulling guts out of a tuna is just as sacred as the downtown artist experimenting with new dramatic ways of speaking Truth to power.<br /><br />Re: Matt's comment (a long time ago, it now seems) that I only love playwrights who do work I find morally acceptable. First of all, in my example of The World Over, I was in the unusual situation of knowing the playwright's opinions of the stories I loved, because the program included a writer's note in which Mr. Bunin wrote that the play was partially a tribute to these same stories, which his mother told to him growing up. So it wasn't just by subjective experience, though the note only confirms my experience. Second of all, I am bound as a human being to love all playwrights, as my fellow human beings. That doesn't mean, however, that I must love their work, or view all plays as equally valuable, or equally deserving of existence. I would have them free to create their work, but that doesn't mean I have to support it. I don't believe that we should support artists who offend just because they are artists. Artists have no claim for special treatment any more than practitioners of any other legitimate and valuable human behavior. However, I believe we should support artists who offend if they offend as a side effect of saying true things that need to be said to people who don't want to hear them - not if they offend for the express purpose of offending. And if you can find a way to make your point just as strongly but without offending, so much the better.<br /><br />Scott, you're now on my blogroll at http://colematson.com (or at least will be in a few minutes). Please forgive me, all, if I don't respond quickly - tech calls!Cole Matsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13954574912456427100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-76217335646760598002009-04-20T19:21:00.000-04:002009-04-20T19:21:00.000-04:00The end of the Internet? Isn't that in Jersey some...The end of the Internet? Isn't that in Jersey somewhere?<br /><br />I'm sorry, was this thing still on? Once we hit 69 comments, I just get adolescent.Paul Rekkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877967547670893967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-89147551827377919942009-04-20T17:59:00.000-04:002009-04-20T17:59:00.000-04:00Right. 'Cause Nazi Germany has no bearing whatsoe...Right. 'Cause Nazi Germany has no bearing whatsoever on a discussion about the intersection between culture and morality.<br /><br />The corollary to Godwin's law: every legitimate online reference to Nazi Germany will be mocked from now until the end of the Internet.<br /><br />C'mon, man.Chris Ashworthhttp://chrisashworth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-27046423191203832512009-04-20T17:28:00.000-04:002009-04-20T17:28:00.000-04:00Well at least everyone finally got around to talki...Well at least everyone finally got around to talking about the Nazis. It's not a legitimately long comment section without such references.Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01183078884824734105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-2725643001450282382009-04-20T16:57:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:57:00.000-04:00First one who gets a reference in to three differe...First one who gets a reference in to three different philosophers in one post wins. Bonus points for quoting ancient greek.Chris Ashworthhttp://chrisashworth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-35359508228455722492009-04-20T16:54:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:54:00.000-04:00> A beautifully phrased sentiment, worth rememb...> A beautifully phrased sentiment, worth remembering, that you will not find me contradicting.<br /><br />(Although it kinda looked like I did. But I was just saying artists need not be obligated to function as social workers to benefit from social workers. The inverse formulation, that social workers don't need to function as artists to benefit from the arts, doesn't work. 'Cause to achieve the full benefit of the arts is inherently tied up in the process of participating in them. Basically, the arts aren't "work" the way anything else is work. They're something else. They are, as Don (and Clive James) said, they're own thing for their own sake.)Chris Ashworthhttp://chrisashworth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-66304542204129955842009-04-20T16:41:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:41:00.000-04:00Oooooo. We're SO educated. This is a new high for ...Oooooo. We're SO educated. This is a new high for Theatre Ideas: Kant and Latin all in the same thread!Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-77735682655187683912009-04-20T16:40:00.001-04:002009-04-20T16:40:00.001-04:00"When a society forgets how to sing, forgets how t..."When a society forgets how to sing, forgets how to tell a story, forgets how to dance, forgets how to draw, and instead hires "the best" to do it for them, something deeply important to human society has been lost, and it enters the economy as a transaction."<br /><br />A beautifully phrased sentiment, worth remembering, that you will not find me contradicting. :)Chris Ashworthhttp://chrisashworth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-84844446286890490722009-04-20T16:40:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:40:00.000-04:00"Ars Gratia Artis" also appeared in the oval surro..."Ars Gratia Artis" also appeared in the oval surrounding the head of Leo the Lion at the start of all MGM motion pictures. <br /><br />I don't have any tattoos on my ars, but if I did, it would read "Utile et Dulce."Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-74735550467999390272009-04-20T16:32:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:32:00.000-04:00Oh, and about propaganda. According to Kant, there...Oh, and about propaganda. According to Kant, there is no such thing as propaganda, there is only art. If Leni Riefenstahl's <I> Triumph of the Will</I> or Cecil B. DeMille's <I>Birth of a Nation</I> is artistically beautiful, it doesn't <I>matter</I> what it is saying, what effect it is having. I can't go there.<br /><br />Yes, propaganda uses artistic forms instrumentally, but that doesn't mean that all art that has a message, all art that speaks to the community, all art that seeks to make the world a better place, is propoganda any more that all people who go into a garage are cars. You are using an extreme example to negate the entire continuum, which I'm sure is a fallacy that has a name in logic.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-47783316467874351892009-04-20T16:21:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:21:00.000-04:00The prudish crack was just a temptation. Well don...The prudish crack was just a temptation. Well done.<br /><br />Our biggest difference in this discussion is pretty simple. It's inked on my right bicep.<br /><br />"Ars Gratia Artis"<br /><br />Good stuff to dwell upon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-66023034248871321232009-04-20T16:10:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:10:00.000-04:00Actually, Don, yes I can... let Labute go, I mean....Actually, Don, yes I can... let Labute go, I mean. Despite your "prudish" crack.<br /><br />(deep breath) No, really. I can.<br /><br />"A) that as I stated, Art is too vast an area for you to effectively discuss what makes a commitment to the Greater Good or not so your limited version of community becomes overwhelmed by comparison (Ocean = Art)"<br /><br />Ummm. This makes absolutely no sense. I mean, it SOUNDS like a syllogism, but...not so much.<br /><br />"Here's the thing I know - if you INTEND to make people laugh, you'll most often fail except for the simplest of minds." <br /><br />Really? So comedy occurs by accident? Sweet -- no need to train, right?<br /><br />"The only road to creation is destruction, Scott. That's nature, not a slogan."<br /><br />yeah. Except for that whole birth thing. <br /><br />"Art that is designed to have a purpose other than the existence of said art is a pragmatic tool."<br /><br />yes, I've read Kant, too, and I think he's full of it. He marginalized art with his argument that art is useless. For the 2200 year history of theatre and literature, its usefulness was always understood and embraced. Cf Aristotle and Horace, a traditiona that dominated until the 1700s. Art is not an end in itself. Read Ellen Dissanayake for a full discussion of the biological purpose of art. <br /><br />Chris -- Not every person is going to be good at every human endeavor, or as good as someone else, but when a society forgets how to sing, forgets how to tell a story, forgets how to dance, forgets how to draw, and instead hires "the best" to do it for them, something deeply important to human society has been lost, and it enters the economy as a transaction.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-81527907273164558482009-04-20T16:06:00.000-04:002009-04-20T16:06:00.000-04:00"Have you ever actually have anyone be truly, deep...<I>"Have you ever actually have anyone be truly, deeply offended by anything you've done? What percentage? And the rest -- how did they react?"</I>I think RLewis dealt with this but to further illustrate:<br /><br />For <I>Metaluna</I> there is a moment when the DADAists, employed to perform vaudeville without any knowledge of WHY vaudeville works, come out in blackface. Following different productions of that show, I've had a number of conversations about the implications of that - some pretty heated, others not.<br /><br />When I directed McNally's <I>Sweet Eros</I>, instead of haviung the kidnapped and abused girl almost get away and get pulled back by her tormentor, I chose to have her escape and CHOOSE to stay. This choice caused a huge outcry and I had heated discussions with a number of patrons about the direction.<br /><br />So yeah, Scott. And percentages are horseshit and you know it, but if it makes you happy, I'll say 60%.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-46776785906868948522009-04-20T15:52:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:52:00.000-04:00Knowing full well that by the time I post this the...Knowing full well that by the time I post this there will be half a dozen more comments....<br /><br />Nevertheless:<br /><br />"Poor Chris! You are trying to walk a razor-thin edge between Don and me, trying to create a bridge that isn't really there. Every time you say something to connect to Don (or Matt), I'll probably be there to bash you!"<br /><br />As the popular online abbreviation goes, "LOL". <br /><br />But that's what makes this whole thing interesting!<br /><br />"First of all, hope is essential."<br /><br />Eh, I don't want to drag us off into a discussion about hope, especially since I don't feel real solid on my relationship to the concept. Was it Lao Tzu who who said something like "hope is as hollow as fear"? Whoever it was, that's a startling idea I'm still trying to grapple with. But I won't begrudge you hope. I'm just suspicious of making it a check-box.<br /><br />"I also disagree with the specialization that permeates our society..."<br /><br />Hey, you're talking to a guy who left theater so he could go get a masters degree so he could go start a software company so he could go get health insurance and a stable salary so he could come back to theater. Which isn't really being fair to the fact that I love the programming and the entrepreneurship and everything else about the non-theater stuff, but the point is: I'm totally with you on fighting the pigeonholes! If I have nothing else to show for my life, I at least have that.<br /><br />But flip your imagination around on this one for a second. Instead of the prison guards and the meat packing plants and the other hyper-pigeonholed souls suffering under a system that specializes too much, instead of focusing on how verifiably shitty it is that we've industrialized and specialized food to the point that it's barely recognizable as food anymore... flip it over and consider the sheer, mind-numbing multi-manifold domain of human endeavor. Somewhere between humans-as-cogs-in-a-machine and humans-as-self-sufficient-creatures there is a balance that keeps us human but still lets us become specialized enough to come up with math and music and biology and carpentry and surgery.<br /><br />We may, in theory, be able to simplify ourselves back down the complexity scale, but even then, man, we're still gonna be specialized. :)<br /><br />If we allow for the idea that not every person will be good at every worthwhile human endeavor, there's a reasonable argument to be made that we're better off pairing talent to endeavors. It may be a fallacious argument, but it's an argument you'll have to deal with one way or another. :)Chris Ashworthhttp://chrisashworth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-33729481857789114822009-04-20T15:48:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:48:00.000-04:00""Truth that has the power to improve likewise has...""Truth that has the power to improve likewise has the power to destroy" -- explain this more fully, because this sounds more like a slogan than an actual argument."<br /><br />Your black and white world is my spectrum, Scott. Improve any one thing and you destroy something else. Action and reaction.<br /><br />"Have you ever actually have anyone be truly, deeply offended by anything you've done? What percentage? And the rest -- how did they react?"<br /><br />Don, you can take these if you want, I'm not turning this into statistical argument about whether or not I'm a true community player. Suffice to say that the artists that I work with on a day to day basis, that being Storefront Chicago, have enough of a relationship with their audience that the idea of an artist hiding from public reaction seems uncommon to me.Paul Rekkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877967547670893967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-51542182205918242152009-04-20T15:46:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:46:00.000-04:00Your boil down of the sailing metaphor underscores...Your boil down of the sailing metaphor underscores two points:<br /><br />A) that as I stated, Art is too vast an area for you to effectively discuss what makes a commitment to the Greater Good or not so your limited version of community becomes overwhelmed by comparison (Ocean = Art)<br /><br />B) Freeman really has you on your general disdain of artists if you genuinely see most of us as Yacht captains.<br />_____<br />Here's the thing I know - if you INTEND to make people laugh, you'll most often fail except for the simplest of minds. Telling a joke is the lowest form of humor as sentimentality is the lowest form of manipulation in art.<br /><br />Thus, a work that <I>intends</I> to promote Hope becomes lame and ineffective.<br /><br />As for deciding to opt out of the propaganda assertion, I'd call that a cop out rather than a high-minded "I'm not lowering the discussion to that" move. Art that is designed to have a purpose other than the existence of said art is a pragmatic tool. Propaganda and advertising are the most obvious pragmatic uses of art. Your assertion that art is a social tool can only be restricted to those two areas and education.<br />_____<br />The only road to creation is destruction, Scott. That's nature, not a slogan.<br /><br />Further, Truth - real, capital T Truth - hurts first and heals second.<br />_____<br /><br />PS: If you don't want to bring LaBute into the discussion, leave him out of it. I happen to love his work and think your reasons for disliking his work has little to do with the artistic merit and everything to do with your prudish taste.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />....don't...I know you want to but you said LaBute wasn't the issue so let it go...<br /><br /><br />You can't, can you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-84362019172876533392009-04-20T15:41:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:41:00.000-04:00"Have you ever actually have anyone be truly, deep..."Have you ever actually have anyone be truly, deeply offended by anything you've done?"<br /><br />Believe that Don has already lovingly answered that:<br /><br />http://donhall.blogspot.com/2008/12/conversation-with-mary.html<br /><br />Still one of my favorites!RLewisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-27791357080449176602009-04-20T15:34:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:34:00.000-04:00Paul and Don -- Describe "being around for the aft...Paul and Don -- Describe "being around for the aftershock" that is so prevalent in Chicago. Do you and all Chicago artists actually have a personal, ongoing relationship with your audience? Have you ever actually have anyone be truly, deeply offended by anything you've done? What percentage? And the rest -- how did they react?Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-68885437810935890822009-04-20T15:29:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:29:00.000-04:00This analogy thing is threatening to go off the ra...This analogy thing is threatening to go off the rails, but let me soldier on. By choosing the word sailor to encompass Navy, fisherman, experimental oceanographers, cruise ship operators, and tug boat captains, you are casting an awfully wide net (pardon the pun). However, I would argue that each serves the community: the Navy by protecting it, the fisherman by feeding it, the oceanographer by informing it, the cruise ship operator by relaxing it, and the tug boat captain by keeping the port open. It would only be the yacht owner sailing around for his own benefit that serves no one. And I do think that those who serve others are more important than those who serve themselves.<br /><br />On hope: yes, on the level of the individual person, hope is a choice. And while we may not agree on what makes us make that choice, we could probably agree about things that undermine it, and we could probably agree on what is intending to promote hope. For instance, the movie "Serpico" ends by destroying hope as the corrupt police destroy the hero. Neil LaBute is a hopelss playwright. "Annie" may be filled with unearned optimism, but the intention is hope-filled. The first Rocky film intends a hopefilled message that the little man can still achieve respectability. <br /><br />However, my original post has nothing at all to say about "hope," but rather about effectiveness. The leap to propaganda, which is the artistic equivalent of jumping to talking about Nazis, is not worth rebutting. However, it is indicative of where we have come as a society -- when working for the Greater Good is equated with manipulation and propaganda.<br /><br />Confronting hypocrisy, complacency, and stupidity is indeed committed to improving the community. Confronting it <I>effectively</I> is what this post was about. Revisit the <I>This American Life</I> analogy in the original post.<br /><br />"Truth that has the power to improve likewise has the power to destroy" -- explain this more fully, because this sounds more like a slogan than an actual argument.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-76404908479320143432009-04-20T15:11:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:11:00.000-04:00Just as a button to my own part in this conversati...Just as a button to my own part in this conversation:<br /><br />"If, he says, an artist's intention is to offend, don't we, as thinking audience members, have a responsibility to BE OFFENDED? As opposed to just sitting there and taking it with the mental shrug that has become, to my mind, worse than active rejection."<br /><br />Maybe it's the not in Chicago aspect that Don mentioned, but I have never seen this as the status quo, which may be where my disagreement lies. My assumption has always been that any artist who chooses to offend also chooses to take the reaction. Not out of a sense of obligation, but because why else would you choose to offend if you don't want to be around for the aftershock?Paul Rekkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14877967547670893967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-85520963229893533122009-04-20T15:08:00.000-04:002009-04-20T15:08:00.000-04:00No doubt, hope is essential. It is, however, not ...No doubt, hope is essential. It is, however, not an artistic choice or an aesthetic imperative. Hope is a choice that each individual makes on his or her own.<br /><br />You may find the musical "Annie" filled with hope but I find it a dismal reminder of how sugar coated most of the crap on Broadway is.<br /><br />I find the Rocky movies filled with hope; I have friends who find it to be populist horseshit.<br /><br />Thus, it is not the responsibility of the artist to attempt to objectively supply hope to his audience as hope is as subjective as laughter or tears.<br />_____<br />Again, Scott - for you it's either one or the other.<br /><br />A sailor who eschews fishing for the village may be in the Navy, allow charters for scientific exploration AND sail for the fun of it.<br /><br />I agree that specialization is crap - it's why I so strongly advocate that day job thing.<br />_____<br />Art is always social but to level it as a pragmatic tool is dangerous manipulation. Propaganda is art used as a tool (look at the anti-Jap and Hun posters of WWII for an excellent series of examples or the comic books of Mao in Communist China).<br /><br />I'd argue that by confronting my community's hypocrisy and complacency and stupidity, my art is, indeed, committed to improving that community and as P. Rekk states, to do so is not limited to a States Rights version of the Truth. Truth that has the power to improve likewise has the power to destroy and is thus more universal than your segregated, limited effectiveness model.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com