http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5256515191980985137#
This is a production by one of the premier New York companies for "new work," to which they attach the interesting definition of having not received a New York production. I would like an explanation for the divergent trend in theatre and visual arts, that while "progressive" mixed- or non-traditional media works are taking the place of sculpture and painting in the prominent galleries from snooty Chelsea to hipsterville, AnyCity, somehow base, derivative if not deteriorating theatrical trends get money pumped into them. I understand that one can't hang a play on the wall for your guests to cringe or laugh at when your back is turned, but couldn't you hang a fancy poster and make up a story like, "the audience cried for hours, days even. My money went for emotional orgasms." I also understand that theatre has no resale value. After theatre sells (i.e. to a producer or company), it then has to sell again to hundreds of people, many of whom cringe and laugh at rich art collector's parties.
This is an issue, I believe, precisely because theatre can't hang on the walls. No matter what I feel about the 30'x30' scribbles that hang in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and are supposed (by whom, I can't tell) to recount the emotional story of the Iliad, I can go down the hall to see a Duchamp painting, a Picasso sculpture, or a medieval triptych. That is, if I see an exhibit that claims to represent "progressive" visual art, I see it in conversation with a variety of artistic traditions that not only contextualize the piece I'm seeing, they remind me (at a very base level), that art doesn't suck. There are no Van Goghs, no Keats in theatre, however, and success after death is heaven if there is one. Supporting new work that is a perversion of old work on the basis of vague affinities for trope endangers theatre in general, because for every miserable show that a person sees, that person is less likely to see another similar show. Since many are wont to group all theatre in a category, "Theatre: a cultural experience" seeing Saved (even if it weren't produced professionally and marketed as new work) might keep them from seeing another play (particularly a new work). If the only theatre people see is revivals of popular plays (and indeed, especially outside of New York, this is the only theatre that makes money), then the theatre scene will become like a museum that only shows painters who re-paint Matisse, some better than others.
Worst, most people who do mount legitimate productions rely, often almost exclusively, on grants. The artists, then (like many visual artists in my belief), become completely divorced from what people are interested in seeing, and the real, monetary value of their work. Art should be a market. How did it become a Thing?
It's not a rhetorical question. I meant to post the video as a joke, but I'm desperate for your input on the matter.
Posts
"The artists, then (like many visual artists in my belief), become completely divorced from what people are interested in seeing, and the real, monetary value of their work. Art should be a market."
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm missing your point, but isn't it the market that we have to thank for Saved: The Musical and 870 consecutive years of Cats? I don't see why an artist catering to the perceived tastes of a Foundation is so much more offensive than an artist catering to those set of tastes and interests sufficiently broad and inoffensive to garner the support of the broadest swath of market demand in the form of ticket sales.
I might be missing your point.
ALARME DI BONER
ReplyDeleteSorry I've been so long to respond, and in truth, I'm sorry for bringing my little fumigation of outrage into this respectable usine d'angeldust.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my point is that art should be an ideal market, governed by an invisible (but aesthetically conscious) hand that pushes money only towards art that I would consider "good."
Actually, my argument is that I don't believe there exists a market for theatre like there does for visual art, and that this is not because people don't want to see what I've seen on small stages for too much money, but rather since (contrary to what revenues seem to suggest), the majority does not want to see Webber’s Whiskered Warblers. Somehow, the limited market that does want to see Saved has become "theatregoers," and both marketing and aesthetic decisions have attempted to pull this same group back again and again (thus the similarity). The problem is that the tight-less majority has been thereby conditioned to consider theatre and these flagrantly money-grubbing productions to be coterminous, and equally undesirable. Granting organizations, independent producers, and more than anything, companies devoted to "new works" must recognize that the largest imperative is increasing the breadth of the demand curve, not the depth of their reach in benefactors' pockets. They are responsible not only to themselves, but to the form (or let's be real, the industry). The priority, then, should be theatre for alternative audiences, art in alternative spaces, and work that fits into the lives of the average Jim. This latter absolutely does not include patronizing attempts at “boys theatre” about baseball and broads.
What this would probably mean is that many more artists would keep their day jobs, but many more people might see art as a legitimate facet of life beyond grade school (or high school musicals) - something that could flourish, not collapse in times of economic downturn.
Maybe Art should not be a market so much as a bazaar.