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
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Another thought on the point of Art
And by art, I mean theatren though I imagine the quote by Lionel Trilling refers to all art.
"A primary function of art and thought is to liberate the individual from the tyranny of his culture in the environmental sense and to permit him to stand beyond it in an autonomy of perception and judgment."
"A primary function of art and thought is to liberate the individual from the tyranny of his culture in the environmental sense and to permit him to stand beyond it in an autonomy of perception and judgment."
A tall order. I hesistate to say I agree or disagree with his statement. I think the best way to phrase my thoughts is to say that I respect the ideal, but question its practicality.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A thought
I'm sitting here in the helpful hum of a flourescent light reading "American Theatre". Nicole Estvanik, in a critic's notebook, says, "Isn't that what we want from our playwrights- for them to frame a Pointillist haze of ideas, events, and personalities, and help us see a picture emerge?"
Is that what "we" want from playwrights?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Reading of "Anatomy of an Anarchist"
Last night (or Sunday August 26 if I'm slow in posting), a play I wrote, "Anatomy of an Anarchist" was produced as a staged reading by the company Intravenous Theatre. In New York City. In Manhattan.
It was brutally hot and humid and the audience was made up of people I didn't know. It was hard to be there with strangers, and I definitely felt bashful going up for the talk back. However, that seems to be the nature of the beast and it was good to place myself in uncomfortable situations.
I was pleased, for the most part, with the results. The actors chosen did a great job, and helped illuminate some of the problems I had been unable to see just by reading. It reaffirmed, to me at least, the need to hear a work out loud to understand what it is you, or in this case, me, have written.
There were some lines that surprised me, I hadn't remembered writing them. I think that's a sign of good acting. Or my poor memory. I haven't read the play in some time, so it's difficult to know if any lines were changed. Normally my dialogue is rife with profanity, and I don't use damn very often. More often it's fuck. So... I wonder.
It was hard to listen to some of the talk back responses, some people were complaining about the effects that I intended to happen. I wanted the ending to feel almost pointless, like there wasn't a real change in the world from the beginning of the play to the end of the play. But this guy said that's what he felt, but seemed to imply it was a negative.
I was really happy with the enthusiastic response that the meta-theatrical nature of the play received. I want the play to be playful, especially when dealing with such a serious topic, and one of the comments I received was that the playfulness balanced out the preachy nature of the material and made it more palatable.
Well, I think that's all for the present. As I begin the rewriting process, there will be more to write here. A second entry on this play, "Anatomy of an Anarchist" will be forthcoming.
Click on the ads!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
It was brutally hot and humid and the audience was made up of people I didn't know. It was hard to be there with strangers, and I definitely felt bashful going up for the talk back. However, that seems to be the nature of the beast and it was good to place myself in uncomfortable situations.
I was pleased, for the most part, with the results. The actors chosen did a great job, and helped illuminate some of the problems I had been unable to see just by reading. It reaffirmed, to me at least, the need to hear a work out loud to understand what it is you, or in this case, me, have written.
There were some lines that surprised me, I hadn't remembered writing them. I think that's a sign of good acting. Or my poor memory. I haven't read the play in some time, so it's difficult to know if any lines were changed. Normally my dialogue is rife with profanity, and I don't use damn very often. More often it's fuck. So... I wonder.
It was hard to listen to some of the talk back responses, some people were complaining about the effects that I intended to happen. I wanted the ending to feel almost pointless, like there wasn't a real change in the world from the beginning of the play to the end of the play. But this guy said that's what he felt, but seemed to imply it was a negative.
I was really happy with the enthusiastic response that the meta-theatrical nature of the play received. I want the play to be playful, especially when dealing with such a serious topic, and one of the comments I received was that the playfulness balanced out the preachy nature of the material and made it more palatable.
Well, I think that's all for the present. As I begin the rewriting process, there will be more to write here. A second entry on this play, "Anatomy of an Anarchist" will be forthcoming.
Click on the ads!
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)