A gem

A small sentence in this book I'm reading, "American Avant-Garde Theatre: a History" by Arnold Aronson has struck a chord with me today.

"If the purpose of art is to create experiences one cannot have in everyday life... then a theatre that replicates the everyday world is meaningless and pointless."

Right on the nose. However, that being said, one then must argue what constitutes everyday world. We do not share identical existences in this world, and therefore, the notions we might consider normal are not necessarily as commonplace as we, in our bias, might assume.

But perhaps we should take this at a broader stroke. Perhaps Dr. Aronson is trying to imply the worthlessness of theatre that exists alongside reality. Is he trying to refer to plays in the realistic or naturalistic sense (Chekhov or Ibsen) or does he also refer to plays that extend a bit further from reality, but remain within the bounds of our capabilities of recognizing the world presented (Tennesee Williams or August Strindberg)? As this is a book about avant garde theatre, it makes sense to assume Dr. Aronson has some predilection for the avant-garde above other forms of theatre, but does this allow us to assume he thinks the vast quantity of theatre is, "meaningless and pointless"?

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T