After an interesting conversation with a friend, I was stimulated to think about the differences between scholarly criticism and that type of commentary from the media. Borrowing from my conversational companion, is the role for those voices located in the media more to promote and market the artist's work, leaving the scholar-critic to inform and interpret?
In the large, Midwestern city in which I live, there is something of a tradition in the media of promoting art and being either kind with criticism or veering away from commentary and providing lightweight education if the subject matter is thorny or difficult and perhaps inspired but less than well executed. This type of criticism is often witty, but not necessariy terribly complex or deep; no 21 paragraph analyses of the artist's oeuvre here in the Heartland. Get 'em out to see the thing, then let the chatter commence.
A recent post in the Chicago Tribune by a reader states, "...I long for the days when critics (such as Frank Rich) could write reviews as well as any playwright could write a play, and create a criticism that was not bound up in what appears to be an insatiable need in today's reviewers to be celebrity critic whose words are quoted in newspaper ads and on the backs of published scripts." (12/5/07 - postscript to Jones' review of the NYC staging of Osage County)
I would tend to agree with this comment. Attending a large chunk of regional theater, I find opening night is cluttered with critics who are there as much to see and talk to each other as to drink in the staging and craft gorgeous commentary that enlightens us as to what we can expect or how we should think about the experience.
So I await and expect from scholars what I thirsted for from others.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
What is it really about?
While attending the current production of Savannah Disputation, a friend asked a truly perceptive and intriguing question: what is it really about. This was in response to someone else's comment about another play - "of course you know what that was really about." Bringing my thoughts squarely to rest on the playwright's thinking for Savannah Disputation in particular was a happy place to land.
This play examines the disappointments of women, priests as people and as symbols, religion, power, mortality (sort of), the role of constraints and those thing forbidden, relationships generally, the South vaguely, America and it's use and mis-use of religion, how we fight and 'getting along', and likely more to add mess to a well constructed run-on sentence. Evan Smith's new play pushes a whole bunch of buttons.
I suspect a certain flatness to the production comes from a linear construct within the play itself because the writing appears to run through a list of questions rather than creating a carefully constructed dramatic progression. The female actors had to work to portray real people because most of the dialog supported light weight characters going after heavy weight material and getting flattened in the process. Occasionally the character of Mary gets something meaty to set up action for Father Murphy. And Robert Scogin's portrayal of the priest has real depth and pathos, partly the result of stellar acting on top of a character with real issues. He shines with masterful power as he commands Margaret to stop second guessing all of catholicism as a result of an afternoon's chat with a sophist-fundamentalist. And his cynicism is front and center when he tells Mary she may as well remain a catholic because she doesn't believe in anything else and, "then you can go to the same church as Margaret."
I would like to see Smith go back and make a less orderly examination of his questions, shake up the situation comedy. But the production is well done and affords laughter about serious rather than solemn topics that invites continued disputation over time.
This play examines the disappointments of women, priests as people and as symbols, religion, power, mortality (sort of), the role of constraints and those thing forbidden, relationships generally, the South vaguely, America and it's use and mis-use of religion, how we fight and 'getting along', and likely more to add mess to a well constructed run-on sentence. Evan Smith's new play pushes a whole bunch of buttons.
I suspect a certain flatness to the production comes from a linear construct within the play itself because the writing appears to run through a list of questions rather than creating a carefully constructed dramatic progression. The female actors had to work to portray real people because most of the dialog supported light weight characters going after heavy weight material and getting flattened in the process. Occasionally the character of Mary gets something meaty to set up action for Father Murphy. And Robert Scogin's portrayal of the priest has real depth and pathos, partly the result of stellar acting on top of a character with real issues. He shines with masterful power as he commands Margaret to stop second guessing all of catholicism as a result of an afternoon's chat with a sophist-fundamentalist. And his cynicism is front and center when he tells Mary she may as well remain a catholic because she doesn't believe in anything else and, "then you can go to the same church as Margaret."
I would like to see Smith go back and make a less orderly examination of his questions, shake up the situation comedy. But the production is well done and affords laughter about serious rather than solemn topics that invites continued disputation over time.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Cooks, Cubans and the role of atmosphere in theater and our daily lives
This is the second in a series of posts that will be dubuting in the space as "works in progress'. I plan to post these only partially completed in case I can convince some of my collaborating artists to participate prior to completion of the product. This will involve some necessary mess because the pieces will change in mid-stream. This will also require me to leave commentary posts up that may not make sense as the pieces change in scope and even perhaps in direction or conclusion.
***
The Cook, in a production currently playing at the Goodman started a conversation on the role of set design in creating atmosphere. In a world that is highly theatrical away from the theater, I wonder if part of the intrigue of that play is a sense of 'trying out' a space. The story itself revolves around people who are preserving a house for differing reasons. The audience reaction so far is that the set is itself a character, one that sets up expectations and then follows up with the process of aging we all must endure.
In shelter magazines the notion of a kitchen as stage is nothing new. The fabulousness of our kitchens tells our friends something about each of us. I long for a kitchen that is the heart of my personal and social life. My kitchen has always been my 'best' room, the place I spend the most time and where most of my friends participate in various creations and evenings of learning. Recently I have been spending a lot more time in my new, small kitchen cooking and contemplating how to make it more mine.
***
The Cook, in a production currently playing at the Goodman started a conversation on the role of set design in creating atmosphere. In a world that is highly theatrical away from the theater, I wonder if part of the intrigue of that play is a sense of 'trying out' a space. The story itself revolves around people who are preserving a house for differing reasons. The audience reaction so far is that the set is itself a character, one that sets up expectations and then follows up with the process of aging we all must endure.
In shelter magazines the notion of a kitchen as stage is nothing new. The fabulousness of our kitchens tells our friends something about each of us. I long for a kitchen that is the heart of my personal and social life. My kitchen has always been my 'best' room, the place I spend the most time and where most of my friends participate in various creations and evenings of learning. Recently I have been spending a lot more time in my new, small kitchen cooking and contemplating how to make it more mine.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Chatting with our demons, on heroes and anti-heroes
Having recently seen two vastly different plays that each include discussion around war or terror, discipline and how we prepare for things, I wonder if it is possible to dramtize contemporary issues without the passage of time to lend perspective. John Patrick Shanley's "Defiance" covers material from the early 70's. Brett Neveu's "Weapon of Mass Impact" seems so very current. I think one succeeds and the other needs some more thought. In addition Evan Smith's "The Savannah Disputation" tackles the search for heroes in the world of today.
Shanley's play is set within the world of the career military in the early 70's. The main issue at hand is race, though there is plenty of room for all sorts of bad behavior. His main topic is the nature of heroes, how are they created, how they behave, can they tangle with women succussfully (in the standard world of real people it seems that men are heroes and women foil their man's best self if they cannot reinforce it). His main character aims for hero-state but misses, never resting on cynicism as a crutch. Does that mean he was never meant to be a hero? Defiance also points to Martin Luther King as hero and as the black captain's excuse for avoiding acts of heroism, though it is his final inability to avoid hero behavior that lends the drama credence, keeps the action moving forward and brings about the end of the Lt. Colonel.
What is the difference between the failures of hero Odysseus when returning to the ever-waiting Penelope and the Lt. Colonel's single transgression? According to the Mrs. it is that he reaches for heroism when he himself isn't one and thus, cannot make the mark. Whereas Penelope expects and demands a hero and thus, does Odysseus' behavior remain heroic. Is this a modern failure to allow for heroes?
After seeing Evan Smith's new play, The Savannah Disputation, I would add another question. Is it possible to be a hero and a cynic at the same time? Women seek heroes, Mary is looking for one in Father Murphy and he acts heroically at the end of the action, but his cynicism shines through as well. Does cynicism make room for an anti-hero?
Neveu's focus is on preparing for a kidnapping and perhaps other acts of terror, how to prepare a potential victim through study, enactment, discussion between victim-students. All the students are women, they are quite different in their character expression, though all are roughly the same age, ethnic and socio-economic background, outwardly the same woman times three. This playwright is always willing to look at fear emotions, internal turmoil, current events as a driver for topic and plot.
Weapon fails to stay on course because the main premise has more to do with exposing ugly feelings while remaining essentially attractive. The emotional crushing of the 'nicest' woman, the woman who truly wants to be liked is at the center of the piece and it has nothing to do with preparing for a kidnapping and is out of place with the device used. This leaves the viewer with two stories that have little to do with each other.
This is a piece in progress and before I finish it, I wonder if anyone else has thoughts? I do believe the subject matter on heroes is what these playwrights are chasing and I find the topic fascinating. How does Joseph Cambell's reflections on being our own heroes work in this thematic area? How about the lack of public heroes lately--our complex world buries their stories. United flight 93 involved heroic behavior unknown until recently (though I believe it happens all the time). And how is it that most compelling stories focus more on those who try and fail to live up to their own expectations?
Shanley's play is set within the world of the career military in the early 70's. The main issue at hand is race, though there is plenty of room for all sorts of bad behavior. His main topic is the nature of heroes, how are they created, how they behave, can they tangle with women succussfully (in the standard world of real people it seems that men are heroes and women foil their man's best self if they cannot reinforce it). His main character aims for hero-state but misses, never resting on cynicism as a crutch. Does that mean he was never meant to be a hero? Defiance also points to Martin Luther King as hero and as the black captain's excuse for avoiding acts of heroism, though it is his final inability to avoid hero behavior that lends the drama credence, keeps the action moving forward and brings about the end of the Lt. Colonel.
What is the difference between the failures of hero Odysseus when returning to the ever-waiting Penelope and the Lt. Colonel's single transgression? According to the Mrs. it is that he reaches for heroism when he himself isn't one and thus, cannot make the mark. Whereas Penelope expects and demands a hero and thus, does Odysseus' behavior remain heroic. Is this a modern failure to allow for heroes?
After seeing Evan Smith's new play, The Savannah Disputation, I would add another question. Is it possible to be a hero and a cynic at the same time? Women seek heroes, Mary is looking for one in Father Murphy and he acts heroically at the end of the action, but his cynicism shines through as well. Does cynicism make room for an anti-hero?
Neveu's focus is on preparing for a kidnapping and perhaps other acts of terror, how to prepare a potential victim through study, enactment, discussion between victim-students. All the students are women, they are quite different in their character expression, though all are roughly the same age, ethnic and socio-economic background, outwardly the same woman times three. This playwright is always willing to look at fear emotions, internal turmoil, current events as a driver for topic and plot.
Weapon fails to stay on course because the main premise has more to do with exposing ugly feelings while remaining essentially attractive. The emotional crushing of the 'nicest' woman, the woman who truly wants to be liked is at the center of the piece and it has nothing to do with preparing for a kidnapping and is out of place with the device used. This leaves the viewer with two stories that have little to do with each other.
This is a piece in progress and before I finish it, I wonder if anyone else has thoughts? I do believe the subject matter on heroes is what these playwrights are chasing and I find the topic fascinating. How does Joseph Cambell's reflections on being our own heroes work in this thematic area? How about the lack of public heroes lately--our complex world buries their stories. United flight 93 involved heroic behavior unknown until recently (though I believe it happens all the time). And how is it that most compelling stories focus more on those who try and fail to live up to their own expectations?
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Theater in all its variety - Chicago has it
In the last week (and 2 days) I have seen a short-story film noirish Coranado, a brand new cops angst ala TV in A Steady Rain, an extreme post-modern Thyestes, the wildly entertaining So Good It Makes you Wanna' Holler, a traditional but finely wrought Suddenly Last Summer (featuring exquisite set design and costumes and some chilling acting), Kurl Weil-Berlin to Broadway (a review) and Hello Dolly with a stripped down cast. You can't say Chicago is not indulging in the full gamut of genres.
The two pieces that demand the most attention here are the Thyestes and the musical/review Makes You Wanna' Holler, Old v. New Style.
I note Thyestes because it disappointed, which probably says more about me than the production. I came away with a sense of stridency, shrill delivery from an actor not noted for shrill, a sense of two men mis-cast (though upon reflection, aren't we all somewhat mis-cast in our lives?).
A friend recently noted: ...to simplify this issue with two questions: Is Thyestes a striking, artful piece of theatre--why or why not? Could Akalaitis have done more with the very ingredients that she herself selected? I think I see untapped potential in this production....Perhaps Akalaitis, whom I admire, actually did not go conceptually far enough. One thinks here about the "Theatre of Cruelty" popular in the 60s. She is surely aware of the fad. I wonder how this might have helped Akalaitis with focus. Even choices.
The theater of cruelty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_Cruelty) offers some good insight into what Akalaitis might be trying to achieve with Thyestes. The upfront cruelty that Seneca portrays stands as his commentary on past and present employers (Caligula and then Nero, under whose employment Seneca was ordered to and did in fact commit suicide). The play itself is about cruelty, who are its perpetrators and its victims. And the pitched attack that Atreus plans and executes against Thyestes is in keeping with the play's theme.
What I found lacking was character development in either Thyestes or Atreus. They each portrayed static men, already bound in the present reality of past choices. So from a dramatic standpoint, the play is rather dull because it is unrealistic to expect Thyestes to get smart and head for the hills. Neither does any rightminded individual believe that Atreus will relent and refrain from tormenting Thyestes, he won't change course, but he sure doesn't have much fun with it either. I like my tragedy to be the worse with possibility of alternate routes away from disaster.
What I did take away from the production was that pushed beyond endurance, we are all like one or the other of the brothers, either melodramatic-to-insane (I'm not talking road rage, but in truly terrible circumtances), or wooden and innefectual on decision making that will change the course of the future. And of course one suspects our director is commenting on our national leader(s) who seems to be perpetually either willfully cruel in pursuit of war to the cost of all other programs under his pervue or a dullard.
At the other end of the spectrum, Makes You Wanna' Holler so far exceeded expectations because it has both giant entertainment value and a seriousness in both story telling and production quality. There is tension on what the outcome might be and the ensembles (new style v. old style) are powerhouses of talent. It is both a joy to see and hear and just so much fun I wanted to get up and join in (some of the audience were in fact invited to and did so). It's easy to play down the value of a show that offers so much sheer fun, but this show has both, though I would like to see a bit more dramatization to more the story forward.
I learned more from Thyestes because I had to thrash out my lessons and grind my teeth on the tough sinews and bloody soup of the play itself as well as the production. But I'm revisiting Makes You Wanna' Holler as often and with considerably more enjoyment of its lessons.
The two pieces that demand the most attention here are the Thyestes and the musical/review Makes You Wanna' Holler, Old v. New Style.
I note Thyestes because it disappointed, which probably says more about me than the production. I came away with a sense of stridency, shrill delivery from an actor not noted for shrill, a sense of two men mis-cast (though upon reflection, aren't we all somewhat mis-cast in our lives?).
A friend recently noted: ...to simplify this issue with two questions: Is Thyestes a striking, artful piece of theatre--why or why not? Could Akalaitis have done more with the very ingredients that she herself selected? I think I see untapped potential in this production....Perhaps Akalaitis, whom I admire, actually did not go conceptually far enough. One thinks here about the "Theatre of Cruelty" popular in the 60s. She is surely aware of the fad. I wonder how this might have helped Akalaitis with focus. Even choices.
The theater of cruelty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_Cruelty) offers some good insight into what Akalaitis might be trying to achieve with Thyestes. The upfront cruelty that Seneca portrays stands as his commentary on past and present employers (Caligula and then Nero, under whose employment Seneca was ordered to and did in fact commit suicide). The play itself is about cruelty, who are its perpetrators and its victims. And the pitched attack that Atreus plans and executes against Thyestes is in keeping with the play's theme.
What I found lacking was character development in either Thyestes or Atreus. They each portrayed static men, already bound in the present reality of past choices. So from a dramatic standpoint, the play is rather dull because it is unrealistic to expect Thyestes to get smart and head for the hills. Neither does any rightminded individual believe that Atreus will relent and refrain from tormenting Thyestes, he won't change course, but he sure doesn't have much fun with it either. I like my tragedy to be the worse with possibility of alternate routes away from disaster.
What I did take away from the production was that pushed beyond endurance, we are all like one or the other of the brothers, either melodramatic-to-insane (I'm not talking road rage, but in truly terrible circumtances), or wooden and innefectual on decision making that will change the course of the future. And of course one suspects our director is commenting on our national leader(s) who seems to be perpetually either willfully cruel in pursuit of war to the cost of all other programs under his pervue or a dullard.
At the other end of the spectrum, Makes You Wanna' Holler so far exceeded expectations because it has both giant entertainment value and a seriousness in both story telling and production quality. There is tension on what the outcome might be and the ensembles (new style v. old style) are powerhouses of talent. It is both a joy to see and hear and just so much fun I wanted to get up and join in (some of the audience were in fact invited to and did so). It's easy to play down the value of a show that offers so much sheer fun, but this show has both, though I would like to see a bit more dramatization to more the story forward.
I learned more from Thyestes because I had to thrash out my lessons and grind my teeth on the tough sinews and bloody soup of the play itself as well as the production. But I'm revisiting Makes You Wanna' Holler as often and with considerably more enjoyment of its lessons.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
What is Redmoon up to these days?
I just got back from a fascinating screening of a review film (that's my term, I mean a compiled film of a live event) that captures a show that Redmoon artistic director Jim Lasko collaborated 'ensemble' to create with several Australian folks (tech design, artistic direction and they had a fabulous musical designer who seemed to have some stand-alone direction, Basil Hodges).
The overall concepts fit with Redmoon themes and style from the past. What really caught my attention was how successful they were (with the addition of really choice music from the 17th/18th century British Isles traditions - brought to America/Australia - work songs, minstrelsy, vaudeville traditions, plus didgery do, some intriguing drumming, etc. all set out in a through-composed format) in making a documentary that gave at least a strong taste of the live production.
At the q&a session following the viewing, Jim was quick to say that film does not serve the live medium - agreed. But they did have some gains. The ability to show details of face, interior space, 3-dimensional stuff that can be lost to an outdoor audience was impressive.
Mst of all I was captivated by the organic creativity used, with some linear plotting, references to many cultures (really all continents except for Africa and perhaps Antarctica), the story visited timelines in multiple directions. The beginning references the end, the middle; other sections of the piece do likewise. In discussions of the limits of linear approaches this piece makes good use of linearism, but is not bounded by it.
What I really liked about the piece (probably more readily available to the live audience, but glimpsed in the film version) was the marrying of social consciousness-driven thinking, art for art's sake, risk (by designers, but much more by those suspended in the rigging), cohesion through music design, questions viewed multiple times in different media (live actors, puppets, lighting as artistic voice, minstrelsy and circus arts, song-enactment, and from the film perspective--use of close up/full screen cinematic perspective).
Bravo, Jim and Co!
The overall concepts fit with Redmoon themes and style from the past. What really caught my attention was how successful they were (with the addition of really choice music from the 17th/18th century British Isles traditions - brought to America/Australia - work songs, minstrelsy, vaudeville traditions, plus didgery do, some intriguing drumming, etc. all set out in a through-composed format) in making a documentary that gave at least a strong taste of the live production.
At the q&a session following the viewing, Jim was quick to say that film does not serve the live medium - agreed. But they did have some gains. The ability to show details of face, interior space, 3-dimensional stuff that can be lost to an outdoor audience was impressive.
Mst of all I was captivated by the organic creativity used, with some linear plotting, references to many cultures (really all continents except for Africa and perhaps Antarctica), the story visited timelines in multiple directions. The beginning references the end, the middle; other sections of the piece do likewise. In discussions of the limits of linear approaches this piece makes good use of linearism, but is not bounded by it.
What I really liked about the piece (probably more readily available to the live audience, but glimpsed in the film version) was the marrying of social consciousness-driven thinking, art for art's sake, risk (by designers, but much more by those suspended in the rigging), cohesion through music design, questions viewed multiple times in different media (live actors, puppets, lighting as artistic voice, minstrelsy and circus arts, song-enactment, and from the film perspective--use of close up/full screen cinematic perspective).
Bravo, Jim and Co!
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Definitions and Assumptions
To begin with a quote from a recent comment: "One of the challenges inherent in exploring both of these questions [artistic voice and what is art] is the need for vigilant definition plus careful assessment of personal/collective assumptions. Without attention to both of these hinges on reality, discourse turns muddy, even as mental streams tend to dry up."
I have been busily stripping away as many assumptions as I can (well, ok that's the goal, I'm not there yet). In my tiny world of learning I have been soaking up teachings this summer. One of them is apparently called "MicroInequities" - I believe this is a trademarked term and I love the content encompassed. 10% of our communications are verbal, the rest are non-verbal including body language, pauses in delivery, tone of voice and the flying saucers we envision as we allow the inner critic to dominate the field and tear apart our unworthy opponents.
A microinequity is the small, yet potent message we actually send as we smile and deliver some sultry palaver of platitudes. While that issue may or may not have much relevance in the artistic process, the assumptions that feed into this behavior are at the core of the issue. Why do we make stuff up about: people, places, created works, ourselves, everything?
As I walk about, lie around and just do my daily stuff I'm assuming all of these things. That person has all this baggage I have endowed him with, even though I know nothing about it and he would laugh at what I have assumed. As I am practicing the big strip tease, lose it or name it, I have all of these wild artistic notions. For example...
Returning this morning from a walk in the park I saw a young boy, an old man (truly, those were not assumptions, though I can't say what the ages are, but shorter than adult growth and reclining, with cane and grey haired) I examined my internal dialog. First I decided they were grandson and grandfather. Strike that, could be any relationship. They are definitely male people, humans, persons of color, could be any class, might be any relationship, although it's before 8am, so someone probably knows they are together.
The boy was chasing the geese into the south pond at Lincoln Park. Awesome - just what I always want to do. The older man was ensconsed in a chair with a fishing rod, instructing the boy (he said "do it [this] way", I think it's fair to say he was the teacher). Without going into more assumptions, I named my issue (now don't go making assumptions) and thought how much I would like to be one or both of them (probably not the geese or the possible fish on the hook). They belonged to each other.
What if the story is taking place somewhere else, New Orleans, Mars, a ritzy apartment in Vegas? What if only song is involved? Or dance? Photomontage would definitely show the perspective of the geese, quite possibly the fish as well. I would suggest that to build an entire story about who's who, what the relationship is and then impose a plot is an example of linear thinking.
If this is the case, I finally understand what linear thinking is. Send me your thoughts.
I have been busily stripping away as many assumptions as I can (well, ok that's the goal, I'm not there yet). In my tiny world of learning I have been soaking up teachings this summer. One of them is apparently called "MicroInequities" - I believe this is a trademarked term and I love the content encompassed. 10% of our communications are verbal, the rest are non-verbal including body language, pauses in delivery, tone of voice and the flying saucers we envision as we allow the inner critic to dominate the field and tear apart our unworthy opponents.
A microinequity is the small, yet potent message we actually send as we smile and deliver some sultry palaver of platitudes. While that issue may or may not have much relevance in the artistic process, the assumptions that feed into this behavior are at the core of the issue. Why do we make stuff up about: people, places, created works, ourselves, everything?
As I walk about, lie around and just do my daily stuff I'm assuming all of these things. That person has all this baggage I have endowed him with, even though I know nothing about it and he would laugh at what I have assumed. As I am practicing the big strip tease, lose it or name it, I have all of these wild artistic notions. For example...
Returning this morning from a walk in the park I saw a young boy, an old man (truly, those were not assumptions, though I can't say what the ages are, but shorter than adult growth and reclining, with cane and grey haired) I examined my internal dialog. First I decided they were grandson and grandfather. Strike that, could be any relationship. They are definitely male people, humans, persons of color, could be any class, might be any relationship, although it's before 8am, so someone probably knows they are together.
The boy was chasing the geese into the south pond at Lincoln Park. Awesome - just what I always want to do. The older man was ensconsed in a chair with a fishing rod, instructing the boy (he said "do it [this] way", I think it's fair to say he was the teacher). Without going into more assumptions, I named my issue (now don't go making assumptions) and thought how much I would like to be one or both of them (probably not the geese or the possible fish on the hook). They belonged to each other.
What if the story is taking place somewhere else, New Orleans, Mars, a ritzy apartment in Vegas? What if only song is involved? Or dance? Photomontage would definitely show the perspective of the geese, quite possibly the fish as well. I would suggest that to build an entire story about who's who, what the relationship is and then impose a plot is an example of linear thinking.
If this is the case, I finally understand what linear thinking is. Send me your thoughts.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Voices in Voice
The Jeff Wall entry in "Artistic Edges" got my mind moving on the notion of "voice", especially when it comes to thinking about voice operative inside artistic activity. And once the issue of voice raised its head, mental machinery sprung the haunting question, "What do we mean by voice when talking about artwork?
Clearly the word voice can have multiple meanings; and with regard to artwork, it can involve any genre. Such spread/flexibility/elasticity in using the word makes the list of inherent operative phenomena connected with "voice" seem legion. So what goes on in voice? Are we talking here about things like soul action, interactive contexts and conditions, dialectical activities that involve the liveliness of modulation, inflection, intervals and time? Or taken from another angle, is voice better understood in terms of personality coupled with matters of style [which in turn includes some of the previous items]? Then again is voice better grasped as something indigenous and organic--a phenomenon deeply concerned with personal makeup, self-identity, and integrity all round? With all these possibilities in mind, is voice one item on the preceding descriptive list of words and phrases? Just some of these items? Perhaps all of these items? None of these--something quite different and unique to itself?
On the negative side, what prevents a distinguishing voice from emerging, that is, from asserting itself in a given artwork or act of making? Does the "no voice" problem imply a deficiency of craft, that is, poor knowledge/skill about some facet of the making process [a technical problem], or is the issue something deeper--something more psychological and spiritual--a problem more directly tied to the actual "content" of what the voice projects [including emotional content]? If this is the problem, then getting a handle on voice may involve issues like inadequate depth perception, insufficient personal risk, over use of linear/technological thinking that turns one's mental movements [with its latent voice] into something flat and colorless so that one judges results by saying, "but there is no their there." In other words, a non-voice with little that is distinguishing/remarkable/personally differentiating, especially in spark and tone.
As suggested previously, the preceding questions apply in some way to all genre in the arts. Hence, voice with its nuances and complications involve singers, dancers, poets, painters, playwrights, and movie directors. Moreover, the preceding questions also relate to issues that involve both a private and a public voice [audience matters], especially the "vocal" challenge of moving from one voice to the other. Too much attention to one can potentially kill the effectiveness of the other. For example, when moving from a private voice to a public one, the result often seems less dynamic and colorful. Why? Is the problem a failure on the part of the artist to risk? Lack of personal self-confidence? Too much outer-direction? Too strong a reliance on experts and/or authority? Too much worry over technique ? Too little project focus due to fear? Too much external social pressure so that a distinctiveness gets lost? Enter the intimidating critic from whatever place/location.
Now back to Jeff Wall. What does all the preceding have to do with him? Perhaps it is time to ask, what is the nature of his voice? Where does it come from and/or how does it come about? Which of his works render voice most distinctly? Most effectively? And why?
Perhaps the moral of the story about a voice is this--"know thyself." And when you have found a self, "speak it"--fearlessly and honestly. Pastiche has its limits.
(This is a cut and paste from work originally posted by Donna)
Clearly the word voice can have multiple meanings; and with regard to artwork, it can involve any genre. Such spread/flexibility/elasticity in using the word makes the list of inherent operative phenomena connected with "voice" seem legion. So what goes on in voice? Are we talking here about things like soul action, interactive contexts and conditions, dialectical activities that involve the liveliness of modulation, inflection, intervals and time? Or taken from another angle, is voice better understood in terms of personality coupled with matters of style [which in turn includes some of the previous items]? Then again is voice better grasped as something indigenous and organic--a phenomenon deeply concerned with personal makeup, self-identity, and integrity all round? With all these possibilities in mind, is voice one item on the preceding descriptive list of words and phrases? Just some of these items? Perhaps all of these items? None of these--something quite different and unique to itself?
On the negative side, what prevents a distinguishing voice from emerging, that is, from asserting itself in a given artwork or act of making? Does the "no voice" problem imply a deficiency of craft, that is, poor knowledge/skill about some facet of the making process [a technical problem], or is the issue something deeper--something more psychological and spiritual--a problem more directly tied to the actual "content" of what the voice projects [including emotional content]? If this is the problem, then getting a handle on voice may involve issues like inadequate depth perception, insufficient personal risk, over use of linear/technological thinking that turns one's mental movements [with its latent voice] into something flat and colorless so that one judges results by saying, "but there is no their there." In other words, a non-voice with little that is distinguishing/remarkable/personally differentiating, especially in spark and tone.
As suggested previously, the preceding questions apply in some way to all genre in the arts. Hence, voice with its nuances and complications involve singers, dancers, poets, painters, playwrights, and movie directors. Moreover, the preceding questions also relate to issues that involve both a private and a public voice [audience matters], especially the "vocal" challenge of moving from one voice to the other. Too much attention to one can potentially kill the effectiveness of the other. For example, when moving from a private voice to a public one, the result often seems less dynamic and colorful. Why? Is the problem a failure on the part of the artist to risk? Lack of personal self-confidence? Too much outer-direction? Too strong a reliance on experts and/or authority? Too much worry over technique ? Too little project focus due to fear? Too much external social pressure so that a distinctiveness gets lost? Enter the intimidating critic from whatever place/location.
Now back to Jeff Wall. What does all the preceding have to do with him? Perhaps it is time to ask, what is the nature of his voice? Where does it come from and/or how does it come about? Which of his works render voice most distinctly? Most effectively? And why?
Perhaps the moral of the story about a voice is this--"know thyself." And when you have found a self, "speak it"--fearlessly and honestly. Pastiche has its limits.
(This is a cut and paste from work originally posted by Donna)
What makes up the artistic 'voice'?
Once again I must start my exploration of artistic voice from my own experience. I am first a singer, second I have a strong ability to identify others by voice (an asset on the phone, where I make some of my living) and finally I have been trained in music arts and as a singer.
Voices produced by human and other acoustic instruments, violins, guitars, drums etc. (let's rule out electronic instruments for now) can be analyzed from an acoustic perspective, or through the physics of sound. The first striking element is the presence of overtones to differentiate one voice from another. Two bass drums made with, say wood, string and a skin will produce different voices, even if drawing from the same pieces of wood, skin and string. One of those drums might get played every day, the other one stays in the hallway, looking great but making nary a sound. The one that gets played changes timbre over time. The changes can be heard or they can be notated through analysis of overtones, which ones and how many are present.
The artist playing the instrument (or singing) will choose over time to make adjustments to her sound. The same is true for an artist composing a piece of music, a photograph or a painting or movie. In performative media (singing, dancing, any live performance) each performance is the instance of the art piece. With plastic arts, each produced piece is also an instance. Some artists like Van Gogh might produce more than 50 pieces that all contain the same basic content, yet each piece is different. And Van Gogh and Gaugin also tried painting the same subject, multiple times in the presence of each other, yet all the pieces produced were different. I would again point to use of overtone for differentiation.
Voices produced by human and other acoustic instruments, violins, guitars, drums etc. (let's rule out electronic instruments for now) can be analyzed from an acoustic perspective, or through the physics of sound. The first striking element is the presence of overtones to differentiate one voice from another. Two bass drums made with, say wood, string and a skin will produce different voices, even if drawing from the same pieces of wood, skin and string. One of those drums might get played every day, the other one stays in the hallway, looking great but making nary a sound. The one that gets played changes timbre over time. The changes can be heard or they can be notated through analysis of overtones, which ones and how many are present.
The artist playing the instrument (or singing) will choose over time to make adjustments to her sound. The same is true for an artist composing a piece of music, a photograph or a painting or movie. In performative media (singing, dancing, any live performance) each performance is the instance of the art piece. With plastic arts, each produced piece is also an instance. Some artists like Van Gogh might produce more than 50 pieces that all contain the same basic content, yet each piece is different. And Van Gogh and Gaugin also tried painting the same subject, multiple times in the presence of each other, yet all the pieces produced were different. I would again point to use of overtone for differentiation.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The view from my window
Let's face it, you either love an air show or, like somewhat like pro-football, you sneer at it, decrying its commercial and consumerist nature. How could anybody spend all that money and especially all that non-renewable energy on this!
My bad.
I now live approximately 1125 feet in the air facing one of the most gorgeous natural spaces in the third coast area. My box of living space overlooks the south pond of a midwestern zoo, near the largest white sand beach in town (including those amazing guy and gal-athlete amazons called volleyball pros) which provides amazing views of blue, grey and sometimes frozen lake vistas. After living in a sometimes spacious but dark basement all my life, small but beautiful finally has a meaning to me. And don't forget that small means clean up is actually easy. Ok, it's not hose it down style, but compared to ginormous American home-is-my-castle living, this is pretty nifty.
Most evenings I come home from the ever present day job to choose between tv and THAT VIEW. Guess which one wins? But I have one problem. I'm allergic to noise. Ever since I can remember I cannot stand the loud bump in the night. So Air and Water anything was a slice of YOUKNOWHAT.
To be fair as a small child I witnessed some evil things that always involved BANG at the end; hold ups outside, robberies inside, burnings and and worse. And then later the real bad thing: coup attempt in a small northern African country including guns, rocket launchers, bombs and tanks - curfew took on a whole new meaing. Absolutely no one from the American Embassy was on hand, just when I had the need. The heck with civilized life, apparently local folks will help...and they surely did.
So to my complete surprise I finally SAW the A&W show. Seeing and feeling that show is radically different. I still winced at the noise, but something so big it makes your entire body vibrate must be given its due. And check out these techno-amazing details. It's free. I know we pay for it, it's an advertizement for the might of the military. Since so many of our children now participate, at least let them aim for perfection; although they make it look easy, I'm betting it is difficult to fly 5 feet away from someone else at 400 MPH.
In contrast and with no prior planning I also managed to be on-hand to see the first (and indeed most of the) runners in this year's Chicago marathon. The only noise for this event was really big cheering. Repeatedly. Boy, I like those spectators. Most them are probably neighbors, but some come from a distance to cheer for friends. I had to be a part of that, so for once I found my view couldn't do everything and I nipped over to the park for some ground level ruckus.
My bad.
I now live approximately 1125 feet in the air facing one of the most gorgeous natural spaces in the third coast area. My box of living space overlooks the south pond of a midwestern zoo, near the largest white sand beach in town (including those amazing guy and gal-athlete amazons called volleyball pros) which provides amazing views of blue, grey and sometimes frozen lake vistas. After living in a sometimes spacious but dark basement all my life, small but beautiful finally has a meaning to me. And don't forget that small means clean up is actually easy. Ok, it's not hose it down style, but compared to ginormous American home-is-my-castle living, this is pretty nifty.
Most evenings I come home from the ever present day job to choose between tv and THAT VIEW. Guess which one wins? But I have one problem. I'm allergic to noise. Ever since I can remember I cannot stand the loud bump in the night. So Air and Water anything was a slice of YOUKNOWHAT.
To be fair as a small child I witnessed some evil things that always involved BANG at the end; hold ups outside, robberies inside, burnings and and worse. And then later the real bad thing: coup attempt in a small northern African country including guns, rocket launchers, bombs and tanks - curfew took on a whole new meaing. Absolutely no one from the American Embassy was on hand, just when I had the need. The heck with civilized life, apparently local folks will help...and they surely did.
So to my complete surprise I finally SAW the A&W show. Seeing and feeling that show is radically different. I still winced at the noise, but something so big it makes your entire body vibrate must be given its due. And check out these techno-amazing details. It's free. I know we pay for it, it's an advertizement for the might of the military. Since so many of our children now participate, at least let them aim for perfection; although they make it look easy, I'm betting it is difficult to fly 5 feet away from someone else at 400 MPH.
In contrast and with no prior planning I also managed to be on-hand to see the first (and indeed most of the) runners in this year's Chicago marathon. The only noise for this event was really big cheering. Repeatedly. Boy, I like those spectators. Most them are probably neighbors, but some come from a distance to cheer for friends. I had to be a part of that, so for once I found my view couldn't do everything and I nipped over to the park for some ground level ruckus.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Jeff Wall
I was very interested to listen to photographer Jeff Wall when he was in town. He spoke to a packed house at the Art Institute in June. His large format, mostly color photos have an instant quality to them that belies the staging that generally go into the production.
Having spent a lifetime listening to silver gelatin-wielding friends, it was somewhat terrifying to realize just how much isn't covered in that discussion space. Large format is, from Wall's perspective partly about getting the size of the image to match the size of the original. I like that: my picture is in the 5-6 foot range, not the 8"x10" normally so popular for headshots. Imagine the look on the casting director's face when she unfolds that! Or perhaps you have the item delivered with a truck (look, no creases). Ok, kidding aside, this was an intersting viewpoint that really makes me think.
He discussed the role that critics play in helping the rest of us examine and understand his works. Clearly, he's not a fan of critics. But then he went on to explain when they got it right, for example when pieces of his reference other art works in different media. How his pieces might recreate a scene he has witnessed, how that recreation might change the event itself. He also discussed the differences in approach when planning for a light box presentation v. a hardcopy print using ink jet or other printing approaches.
His approach helped clarify something I've been discussing in terms of artistic voice. How could I render a drawing of a flower, then photograph it, write a poem and sing about it and finally present a dance on the subject. Can I present a compelling personal artistic voice so that another person might say, "that dance reminds me of that song"?
What is the relationship between performative formats? How can dance be like song? Is my crisp movement used to indicate strongly delineated articulation, say a step from right to left (think Twyla Tharp) similar to producing a vocal tone that is also strongly articulated (attention being paid to stop/start, clearness of pitch)? Yes. When a choreographer chooses the sounds to create the sonic portion of a dance piece, she chooses deliberately. Alvin Ailey's Revelations series is costumed with traditional looking clothing referencing, though not reproducing the look of the 18th or 19th century. The music used is choral gospel music. The lighting is bright colors with dramatic contrasts. All of these design elements help deliver the message in the choreography itself.
Where am I headed? Production elements are used to build a complex, unified voice. If executed well enough, that voice can be discovered across performative disciplines and the plastic arts. Sondheim's "Sunday in the Park with George" can reference Georges-Pierre Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. But another artist might want to tackle both a painting and a tone poem or another dyptich of cross reference to enrich the final experience and exploration.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Procrastinating which can lead to stuckness
One great thing about those painful artist retreats for writers: 4 hours a day, write, even if it's a recipe, a description of doing something or something you remember from someone else. Just begin getting something on the page.
This is not to advocate rushing. Voice is full of phlegm, hum for awhile, gently clean those vocal cords. Clear your throat aggressively and all you've done is assault yourself and make way for some more healing phlegm. Same with ripping the bandage off along with the scab. If it's too soon for action, you'll know it by repeating, repating, repeating.
This is not to advocate rushing. Voice is full of phlegm, hum for awhile, gently clean those vocal cords. Clear your throat aggressively and all you've done is assault yourself and make way for some more healing phlegm. Same with ripping the bandage off along with the scab. If it's too soon for action, you'll know it by repeating, repating, repeating.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
In response to stuckness
I have an interesting discussion going about something we're calling linearism. As a result, I've had some thoughts on stuckness. Most of the artistic blocks I have seen are a type of stuckness, though to the artist it feels more like just a blank slate or lack of inspiration.
But in terms of stuckness itself, a linear approach (first I do this, then I do that) to become unstuck is often a critial culprit in stopping progress. All the perfectionists I know have lots of reasons for why they must do a certain something before they can complete a task.
The need to finish things in proper precedence can derail or stop the train because one step isn't working out. I cannot chew the gum because I didn't take the gum out of the wrapper. While it is true the gum will taste better sans paper, it is probably possible to chew the gum with the paper on, removing bits as the paper shreds.
So how desperate are you for the flavor of gum?
But in terms of stuckness itself, a linear approach (first I do this, then I do that) to become unstuck is often a critial culprit in stopping progress. All the perfectionists I know have lots of reasons for why they must do a certain something before they can complete a task.
The need to finish things in proper precedence can derail or stop the train because one step isn't working out. I cannot chew the gum because I didn't take the gum out of the wrapper. While it is true the gum will taste better sans paper, it is probably possible to chew the gum with the paper on, removing bits as the paper shreds.
So how desperate are you for the flavor of gum?
Saturday, June 23, 2007
encountering stuckness
Most people I've talked with about it admit they go through times when they know what they want to do (or need to do, or "should" do) but just... don't do it. Sometimes this happens as a full-blown procrastination incident, complete with agonizing. Other times, focus just shifts to something else, and we only later notice "hmm, I didn't do X yet!" Could be good or bad, depending on how urgent/important the "something else" was.
Lately, though, I've been thinking about a related but more-intense phenomenon: the kind of stuck feeling where we know a situation isn't as it should be, but have trouble even coming up with an idea about what we want to do, or need to do, or "should" do about that situation. Sometimes the stuckness even extends to an inability to imagine how the situation could be better! If it's easy to mull over hypothetical options in an abstract intellectual way, but impossible to choose one that seems best, that still counts.
The mental image I'm getting is of a student who can't solve the problem on the board, standing at the front of the class. Nobody sitting behind our student can tell if the problem is lack of comprehension, poor eyesight, fear of public performance, or a deep-seated horror of chalk (OK, OK, dry-erase markers). Maybe our stuck student just doesn't want to show off, or doesn't want to show someone else up, or hasn't had a meal in a while. It's unclear, but everyone involved is painfully aware there's a problem somewhere. The scene has burst out of its script, and nothing is flowing. Until something shifts, only an increasingly uncomfortable pause will be possible...
Lately, though, I've been thinking about a related but more-intense phenomenon: the kind of stuck feeling where we know a situation isn't as it should be, but have trouble even coming up with an idea about what we want to do, or need to do, or "should" do about that situation. Sometimes the stuckness even extends to an inability to imagine how the situation could be better! If it's easy to mull over hypothetical options in an abstract intellectual way, but impossible to choose one that seems best, that still counts.
The mental image I'm getting is of a student who can't solve the problem on the board, standing at the front of the class. Nobody sitting behind our student can tell if the problem is lack of comprehension, poor eyesight, fear of public performance, or a deep-seated horror of chalk (OK, OK, dry-erase markers). Maybe our stuck student just doesn't want to show off, or doesn't want to show someone else up, or hasn't had a meal in a while. It's unclear, but everyone involved is painfully aware there's a problem somewhere. The scene has burst out of its script, and nothing is flowing. Until something shifts, only an increasingly uncomfortable pause will be possible...
Thursday, May 17, 2007
On the nature and danger of hiatum
Hiatum: is this a noun setting for hiatus (my intent)? After the joy of new blogging and learning some do's and dont's to posts, I have hidden away and packed my bags. Literally. I move in one short week. All my possessions are packed, I have enjoyed the luxury of living in borrowed digs, walking distance from the day job, but lightyears away from easy blog access.
I fly off for exotic (well, ok, other) climes and plan to return in time for my poor boxes to relocate to a smaller, slimmer, easier locale. Like magic, I will return and remove to the new spot.
Apologies for being out of pocket so long. So many comments are on fire in my mind. I hope to return to thinking out loud and with your assistance after Memorial Day.
Cheers,
Gillian
I fly off for exotic (well, ok, other) climes and plan to return in time for my poor boxes to relocate to a smaller, slimmer, easier locale. Like magic, I will return and remove to the new spot.
Apologies for being out of pocket so long. So many comments are on fire in my mind. I hope to return to thinking out loud and with your assistance after Memorial Day.
Cheers,
Gillian
Monday, April 23, 2007
Artness - both as term and as response to excellent post...
I was struck by the quality of comments to a post of mine (selling out) that I thought we should take it up with a new post.
Here's the excellent query material:
Is the artness of art happening at the time of creation, or at the time appreciation is posted? What about works that are neglected and then discovered? Or lauded and later rejected?
This is huge for me as an artist: I feel I must NOT be too swayed by feedback, critique, etc., in my work. So even though I will be changed by input (yes, there are plenty of studies about how being studied changes the subject being studied, but I think this is different), I must NOT change my final product.
But the second part of this feeds into artistic voice. Over time producing multiple pieces of art, my voice should grow or at least change.
Those wonderful products that, over time age well are proof of art as useful, as transformative over time. The first part: works neglected, then discovered. This is so true for dead artists, think Van Gogh. The second part, whoopee you get the nod, then fade to obscurity.
Here's the excellent query material:
Is the artness of art happening at the time of creation, or at the time appreciation is posted? What about works that are neglected and then discovered? Or lauded and later rejected?
This is huge for me as an artist: I feel I must NOT be too swayed by feedback, critique, etc., in my work. So even though I will be changed by input (yes, there are plenty of studies about how being studied changes the subject being studied, but I think this is different), I must NOT change my final product.
But the second part of this feeds into artistic voice. Over time producing multiple pieces of art, my voice should grow or at least change.
Those wonderful products that, over time age well are proof of art as useful, as transformative over time. The first part: works neglected, then discovered. This is so true for dead artists, think Van Gogh. The second part, whoopee you get the nod, then fade to obscurity.
Games we play and adopting persona
After watching Apple Tree's production of The Gin Game, I was struck by the challenges of changing persona. This is a play for two very mature actors - well cast, this means actors in their 70's. If you are sitting close, it really helps that their hands are the hands of 70-somethings. This production did that. I was front row, but current Apple Tree space is basically in the round with two rows. How brave! Hope the theater is recruiting 20-something audience, they need to see this.
Just because we get wrinkley, have veins showing or difficulty in raising a leg to adjust a sock, does NOT mean that life's issues have changed. And let's talk cussing. Wow, the first time a woman says the F-word, if it's this late in life, it has IMPACT. Doesn't mean she didn't think it, hear it, suffer from it. But to say it - this actress really made that experience real.
Anger management gets the real treatment in this piece about two retirement home residents, living in a place neither of them 'planned' for. This guy goes over the top, shouting, throwing, basically doing all the things that aren't allowed in public anymore. Is he a tyrant? I think so, but oh so human, I could be him. And her reaction, she's dominating in terms of winning every card game round they have. Wish it were me winning, but knowing he'll be crazy with irritation each time...what to do. I don't want to be in her shoes because it's clear he will not be gracious.
They talk the middle class game, so how, they reason, did they get the welfare label? Guess what, this isn't the automat where you pays your dollar and you gets your egg salad sandwich. Sometimes stuff just happens to you. It sure does to me and all my friends. I so like these characters, even though they both behave less than perfectly. That's real.
They adopt meeting-each-other personas. And then there is getting-to-know-each-other persona, and then final dreadful, final scene, it's going-to-end-badly persona. How far do we take ourselves in reaching out, trying something uncomfortable?
Just because we get wrinkley, have veins showing or difficulty in raising a leg to adjust a sock, does NOT mean that life's issues have changed. And let's talk cussing. Wow, the first time a woman says the F-word, if it's this late in life, it has IMPACT. Doesn't mean she didn't think it, hear it, suffer from it. But to say it - this actress really made that experience real.
Anger management gets the real treatment in this piece about two retirement home residents, living in a place neither of them 'planned' for. This guy goes over the top, shouting, throwing, basically doing all the things that aren't allowed in public anymore. Is he a tyrant? I think so, but oh so human, I could be him. And her reaction, she's dominating in terms of winning every card game round they have. Wish it were me winning, but knowing he'll be crazy with irritation each time...what to do. I don't want to be in her shoes because it's clear he will not be gracious.
They talk the middle class game, so how, they reason, did they get the welfare label? Guess what, this isn't the automat where you pays your dollar and you gets your egg salad sandwich. Sometimes stuff just happens to you. It sure does to me and all my friends. I so like these characters, even though they both behave less than perfectly. That's real.
They adopt meeting-each-other personas. And then there is getting-to-know-each-other persona, and then final dreadful, final scene, it's going-to-end-badly persona. How far do we take ourselves in reaching out, trying something uncomfortable?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Transit rage: is this just ranting?
Reviewing the many uses for blogs, I was informed today that blogs are really for ranting. With the exception of the one that places Mr. Bush and Miss Winfrey in the same sentence (horrors for them both), I have refrained. Clearly it is time to bust out and have some fun.
Here in Olympicmaniatown, it turns out that all forms of mass transit are slower, smellier and less reliable than ever. Why do we wait for a rapid transit option (every 9 minutes overnight) for an actual 30 minutes of an evening? At this point any sane person would look at the packed situation onboard, the state of the heaving train, the lack of apology on the driver's face and having dreamt of a cab, would now find the excuse she was waiting for and hail one. I get right on.
Hmm, the aroma that is that summertime El smell. Old sneakers with some sort of special sauce on top. On Mondays your feet will stick to the floor. Later in the week, there will be additional sniffy treats because of all the meals consumed (against both rules and good sense) enroute. As the week matures, other types of detritus will appear in paper form. IF YOU'RE LUCKY. It does keep the stick-factor down. Clearly it takes ghost busters to wash these things out. I picture the guys in the white suits with full body gear.
Turn to expressways (now, every one of which follows the Dan Ryan mantra -it's been rebranded to take the snailway), add in either a transponder (to ponder what?) or double your fun (and spendrate) by paying cash at tolls every 16 feet. You will crawl, but you'll be able to apply your makeup...or read the paper. But you cannot talk on the phone, that's a $200 fine.
Metra is the way to fly (posh commuter trains for those not yet cozy with the city of big shoulders). Only my friend messed up tonight (I thought I had it bad) and he found himself going back for keys. Going back? He had to go back downtown, get the keys and then ride out to green pastures. His once an hour option turned into once every 2 hours. The last ride starts well after midnight. If he's home by 2am, I'll be surpised. He threated to go to the bar - maybe he found a hotel instead. Only there's 100% occupancy in town now (that means no available beds in English).
Do we have some work to do to get ready for the next Olympic round in '09? It would appear so.
Here in Olympicmaniatown, it turns out that all forms of mass transit are slower, smellier and less reliable than ever. Why do we wait for a rapid transit option (every 9 minutes overnight) for an actual 30 minutes of an evening? At this point any sane person would look at the packed situation onboard, the state of the heaving train, the lack of apology on the driver's face and having dreamt of a cab, would now find the excuse she was waiting for and hail one. I get right on.
Hmm, the aroma that is that summertime El smell. Old sneakers with some sort of special sauce on top. On Mondays your feet will stick to the floor. Later in the week, there will be additional sniffy treats because of all the meals consumed (against both rules and good sense) enroute. As the week matures, other types of detritus will appear in paper form. IF YOU'RE LUCKY. It does keep the stick-factor down. Clearly it takes ghost busters to wash these things out. I picture the guys in the white suits with full body gear.
Turn to expressways (now, every one of which follows the Dan Ryan mantra -it's been rebranded to take the snailway), add in either a transponder (to ponder what?) or double your fun (and spendrate) by paying cash at tolls every 16 feet. You will crawl, but you'll be able to apply your makeup...or read the paper. But you cannot talk on the phone, that's a $200 fine.
Metra is the way to fly (posh commuter trains for those not yet cozy with the city of big shoulders). Only my friend messed up tonight (I thought I had it bad) and he found himself going back for keys. Going back? He had to go back downtown, get the keys and then ride out to green pastures. His once an hour option turned into once every 2 hours. The last ride starts well after midnight. If he's home by 2am, I'll be surpised. He threated to go to the bar - maybe he found a hotel instead. Only there's 100% occupancy in town now (that means no available beds in English).
Do we have some work to do to get ready for the next Olympic round in '09? It would appear so.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Selling out
The real problem with being poor is that you never really get to play the grown up. You have no money, you don't develop that much taste because you cannot execute on that taste. Likewise, someone else always has the purse strings and thus makes all the decisions. If you are good at Jane Austin-speak, you'll become adept at being the perfect guest, the right size for hand-me-downs, great at being unpaid help for posh events that let you pretend. But you will not grow better at decision-making because you will make none that are not reactive.
Having lived most of my life as a fully employed and earning performing artist, I wasn't part of the genuine poor class, but rather the artist class. This group has the same issues as the poor, no health insurance, no real sense of where the next paycheck is. But we develop our tastes, get good at recycling items and tarting them up, we decide we wish for our freedom. But what freedom do we actually exercise? It generally sits flabby and palid in the closet waiting for a really good choice to appear. The green see-through chiffon or the chocolate body paint? They both sound good, but they always come with a price tag that someone else sets. What is art and what is commerce?
If it is popular is it still art? If it is perfectly delivered, easy to produce, is there still art in the mix? I always learn something different in performance than in studio - is that fair to the audience? For a singer there are gravy gigs, Easter Messiahs, Holy Week, High Holidays work, that perfect church or synagogue that guarantees weddings, funerals, services without much learning to do. How to manage the balance between building confidence and adding knowledge through risk taking?
Having decided a few brief years ago to take a day job and starve on my own time (note to self - gained 2 dress sizes on this plan), I find that there are points to recommend as well as detract from this plan. I really can choose my medium, pursue the outlay to learn something new, go hear or see someone else who does it well, take a lesson or five. How many times can you sing the same piece of music and add something special to the performance? Is delivering the same performance alright if it is excellent enough? At some point this experience creates challenges to personal growth. But does the growth happen in studio or on the stage or both places? Back again to self-confidence through repetition v. growth through terror....
Here's the final question: an early lesson for me was that striking the right price was important. At some point it is better to 'donate' the performance or piece, but demand quid pro quo of some other sort. That ultimately became my path from $25 pay for a full concert (including my paying an accompanist) to earning $1000 for a single performance of work I had performed numerous times. When I can afford to rest, put myself into peak form for a performance, feel my most confident, I can deliver an 'experience' an audience that is transformative. How do we value this in terms of dollar price? And how does an artist maintain freshness - access the artistic universal soul?
How does the audience perception change when they pay? If you have the chance to attend the opera (dance, film, rock concert, pro football game, etc.) through the generosity of a friend, employer, winning a contest - WILL YOU SHOW UP? I think chances fall in this scenario. Yet this model pays for many of us to do the thing we love, commerce often pays for art.
My best recent experience was listening to a free classical concert of Russian piano music at DePaul. I knew up front I could only attend the first half because of additional work on my plate that night. A friend found the listing, we met, ate, listened. Paying for the ticket would not have caused me to stay for the entire event. The quality was amazing. I was there to enjoy the music which I could share and discuss with my friend, not because I hoped someone would see me. I was quality audience. Did that help the performers...maybe.
Having lived most of my life as a fully employed and earning performing artist, I wasn't part of the genuine poor class, but rather the artist class. This group has the same issues as the poor, no health insurance, no real sense of where the next paycheck is. But we develop our tastes, get good at recycling items and tarting them up, we decide we wish for our freedom. But what freedom do we actually exercise? It generally sits flabby and palid in the closet waiting for a really good choice to appear. The green see-through chiffon or the chocolate body paint? They both sound good, but they always come with a price tag that someone else sets. What is art and what is commerce?
If it is popular is it still art? If it is perfectly delivered, easy to produce, is there still art in the mix? I always learn something different in performance than in studio - is that fair to the audience? For a singer there are gravy gigs, Easter Messiahs, Holy Week, High Holidays work, that perfect church or synagogue that guarantees weddings, funerals, services without much learning to do. How to manage the balance between building confidence and adding knowledge through risk taking?
Having decided a few brief years ago to take a day job and starve on my own time (note to self - gained 2 dress sizes on this plan), I find that there are points to recommend as well as detract from this plan. I really can choose my medium, pursue the outlay to learn something new, go hear or see someone else who does it well, take a lesson or five. How many times can you sing the same piece of music and add something special to the performance? Is delivering the same performance alright if it is excellent enough? At some point this experience creates challenges to personal growth. But does the growth happen in studio or on the stage or both places? Back again to self-confidence through repetition v. growth through terror....
Here's the final question: an early lesson for me was that striking the right price was important. At some point it is better to 'donate' the performance or piece, but demand quid pro quo of some other sort. That ultimately became my path from $25 pay for a full concert (including my paying an accompanist) to earning $1000 for a single performance of work I had performed numerous times. When I can afford to rest, put myself into peak form for a performance, feel my most confident, I can deliver an 'experience' an audience that is transformative. How do we value this in terms of dollar price? And how does an artist maintain freshness - access the artistic universal soul?
How does the audience perception change when they pay? If you have the chance to attend the opera (dance, film, rock concert, pro football game, etc.) through the generosity of a friend, employer, winning a contest - WILL YOU SHOW UP? I think chances fall in this scenario. Yet this model pays for many of us to do the thing we love, commerce often pays for art.
My best recent experience was listening to a free classical concert of Russian piano music at DePaul. I knew up front I could only attend the first half because of additional work on my plate that night. A friend found the listing, we met, ate, listened. Paying for the ticket would not have caused me to stay for the entire event. The quality was amazing. I was there to enjoy the music which I could share and discuss with my friend, not because I hoped someone would see me. I was quality audience. Did that help the performers...maybe.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Equus and Realism
Equus at Actor's Workshop is excellent. The staging is extremely spare, almost non-existent. Because I had difficulty seeing (if you care, you'll want to get there early and sit up front), I had to rely on voices for some of the production. NO PROBLEM. The main actors were up to the task. In some ways this added to my experience. The work itself is dense and strong emotion, or lack of it, is part of the subject matter being explored. Having an aural component and a certain difficulty in seeing everything was perhaps intended by the director. The doctor's internal dialog is all the more real for being more vocal and something seen.
The lighting was used entirely to set emotional tone rather than for realistic effect. First we were in a therapeutic, almost chilly space, then a bit of red conjured warmth, relaxing into emotion. A beach scene was suffused with soft, mostly blue light for outdoor space. I could almost smell salt water (some foley work helped here). This use of lighting occured again and again, yet was not intrusive. In act 2 backlighting for the young lovers really racked up the sense of a pressure cooker and served in contrast to the dramatic and literally dark scene blinding the horses.
I found the sound design filmic, subtle and personally directed. Music or foley work was added only as needed to increase emotional temperature (warmer or cooler) as originally set by lighting. Because the space at Actor's is so intimate, there was no need for anything overly loud. A courteous audience meant that very small sounds penetrated and were effective.
Directing through a spare concept allowed for strong dramatization by the two main actors. They were not required to compete with a busy set and were often in semi-darkness, as are we all when living with our thoughts. In a dense and atmospheric 'place' there was more work for my imagination than anything solid on stage and this added to to my experience. In food terms this show is both meat and potatoes and the best dessert you will find. The writing makes for serious content, the presentation here is artful. The dramatic voice of the director is clear with lots of light, high tones and authenticity. The playwright's language shown through.
This was a superior use of 2.5 hours.
The lighting was used entirely to set emotional tone rather than for realistic effect. First we were in a therapeutic, almost chilly space, then a bit of red conjured warmth, relaxing into emotion. A beach scene was suffused with soft, mostly blue light for outdoor space. I could almost smell salt water (some foley work helped here). This use of lighting occured again and again, yet was not intrusive. In act 2 backlighting for the young lovers really racked up the sense of a pressure cooker and served in contrast to the dramatic and literally dark scene blinding the horses.
I found the sound design filmic, subtle and personally directed. Music or foley work was added only as needed to increase emotional temperature (warmer or cooler) as originally set by lighting. Because the space at Actor's is so intimate, there was no need for anything overly loud. A courteous audience meant that very small sounds penetrated and were effective.
Directing through a spare concept allowed for strong dramatization by the two main actors. They were not required to compete with a busy set and were often in semi-darkness, as are we all when living with our thoughts. In a dense and atmospheric 'place' there was more work for my imagination than anything solid on stage and this added to to my experience. In food terms this show is both meat and potatoes and the best dessert you will find. The writing makes for serious content, the presentation here is artful. The dramatic voice of the director is clear with lots of light, high tones and authenticity. The playwright's language shown through.
This was a superior use of 2.5 hours.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Form and Analysis - drama realizes a musical form
Bach in Leipzig is currently playing in Glencoe at Writer's Theater. It's a clever production of a clever riff on the western classical music form known as a fugue. I plan to prose on here about the how the form dictates the content (browse ahead if you are a musician, or better yet, pick a fight on whether I have my facts correct)--more facts coming to a blog near you. 6 players represent each voice part (in music this can be actual singing voices, but it is more often a sort of 'character' in musical terms in keyboard realisation. Ah ha, Bach's the only dude recognized for being able to use 6 vox in counterpoint, damn he was good. And he's the never seen character who will get the job without actually auditioning (we know this from the title - I'm not spoiling anything here).
This bit of goofball writing is a critical work in progress, so commentators, here's where I could use some input from you. Any thoughts on pictoral representation of subject, counter subject, new versions of these, some additional fun facts on fugue devices? I will try for a textual representation as well.
So to continue, there are six characters, subject (Johann I, he will reappear as Johann II and Johann III, different characters within the play who represent the subject i, subject ii and subject iii) and then there's counter subject (Georg - same deal as subject).
I also will try to make a case for a magical device (Telemann who never actually speaks - waste of Mr. Lindner, but he strode across the stage masterfully - I hope he got paid full rate). This is a rather modern approach with terms that are not consistent with baroque styles, but I'll try to get some comment in on that too (ok, I have to do some more research).
These dudes present themselves in various forms: tonic, dominant, inversions, reminders of other devices in fugue form. In music you hear what today we would call a theme or (pop music) a melody repeated in various ways. Theatrically this means that a device like, "I will try to extort funds from the next character to enter stage left" hands action from one character to the next, moves the plot along and finally wraps it up.
All very diverting, but if you realize what's afoot early on, the show is a bit dull, or at least smirky. Was it the production? A lot of wink, wink, nod, nod. It was a Sunday matinee, the audience was justifiably proud for getting the format and the jokes. We were patting our tummies and commenting on the delicious fare. I felt like this was a good 3 stooges with each stooge assigned to 2 parts. They even looked a bit alike because of the gorgeous but not quite authentic costumes. Great detail on the set (how did they paint all that faux marble in time), but again, detail overtook the larger whole.
Ok, enough cattiness, this feeds into a larger discussion that is emerging for me about subtlety v. being ambushed. With such a new show and such a complex structure, some broad hints and a winking is perhaps not altogether overbearing. How rich is too rich?
This bit of goofball writing is a critical work in progress, so commentators, here's where I could use some input from you. Any thoughts on pictoral representation of subject, counter subject, new versions of these, some additional fun facts on fugue devices? I will try for a textual representation as well.
So to continue, there are six characters, subject (Johann I, he will reappear as Johann II and Johann III, different characters within the play who represent the subject i, subject ii and subject iii) and then there's counter subject (Georg - same deal as subject).
I also will try to make a case for a magical device (Telemann who never actually speaks - waste of Mr. Lindner, but he strode across the stage masterfully - I hope he got paid full rate). This is a rather modern approach with terms that are not consistent with baroque styles, but I'll try to get some comment in on that too (ok, I have to do some more research).
These dudes present themselves in various forms: tonic, dominant, inversions, reminders of other devices in fugue form. In music you hear what today we would call a theme or (pop music) a melody repeated in various ways. Theatrically this means that a device like, "I will try to extort funds from the next character to enter stage left" hands action from one character to the next, moves the plot along and finally wraps it up.
All very diverting, but if you realize what's afoot early on, the show is a bit dull, or at least smirky. Was it the production? A lot of wink, wink, nod, nod. It was a Sunday matinee, the audience was justifiably proud for getting the format and the jokes. We were patting our tummies and commenting on the delicious fare. I felt like this was a good 3 stooges with each stooge assigned to 2 parts. They even looked a bit alike because of the gorgeous but not quite authentic costumes. Great detail on the set (how did they paint all that faux marble in time), but again, detail overtook the larger whole.
Ok, enough cattiness, this feeds into a larger discussion that is emerging for me about subtlety v. being ambushed. With such a new show and such a complex structure, some broad hints and a winking is perhaps not altogether overbearing. How rich is too rich?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Mr. Marmalade
The Chemically Imbalanced Theater Project (sic) has a new show up at the Cornservatory in Chicago that offers some interesting views on extreme behavior, it's entrance into the mainstream, what happens when we ignore issues and behaviors that are outside the lines.
The show revolves around a 4 year's play subject and patterns during one evening while her mother is on a date. She consistently paints vignettes of disturbing and dysfunctional behavior overlaid with her own character's desparate desire for cookie cutter normalcy in the form of mother/father/child playing at 'house' and the introduction of structure where none is likely to occur naturally. The child's characters are all grown, foul mouthed and desparately unhappy, with the startling exception of a truly suicidal 5 year old playmate who is coaxed into the standard, if depressed behavior of the typical American, sport loving, junk food eating male. Ok, I admit it, if the child characters were only about 4 years older, it would be more believable.
Oddly intriguing is the fact that another (not to be named) company is mounting this show in Chicago opening April 5. First, why do multiple companies want to do the same show? I think this is because they do not know who else is doing what else, and hot shows are always of interest. More to the point, the topics covered are truly gripping, universal, the subject has been handled well by the dramatist. This show made me (and other lunatics in the audience) laugh. Sounds callous. Well we weren't, trust me.
Once again I am falling prey to the idea of being ambushed. The point of this show is that these kids are acting out the adult neediness around them. The adults pretend they have no angst so they can elude the guilt gripping them. The kids show us in the fourth wall section what's real.
The show revolves around a 4 year's play subject and patterns during one evening while her mother is on a date. She consistently paints vignettes of disturbing and dysfunctional behavior overlaid with her own character's desparate desire for cookie cutter normalcy in the form of mother/father/child playing at 'house' and the introduction of structure where none is likely to occur naturally. The child's characters are all grown, foul mouthed and desparately unhappy, with the startling exception of a truly suicidal 5 year old playmate who is coaxed into the standard, if depressed behavior of the typical American, sport loving, junk food eating male. Ok, I admit it, if the child characters were only about 4 years older, it would be more believable.
Oddly intriguing is the fact that another (not to be named) company is mounting this show in Chicago opening April 5. First, why do multiple companies want to do the same show? I think this is because they do not know who else is doing what else, and hot shows are always of interest. More to the point, the topics covered are truly gripping, universal, the subject has been handled well by the dramatist. This show made me (and other lunatics in the audience) laugh. Sounds callous. Well we weren't, trust me.
Once again I am falling prey to the idea of being ambushed. The point of this show is that these kids are acting out the adult neediness around them. The adults pretend they have no angst so they can elude the guilt gripping them. The kids show us in the fourth wall section what's real.
Extremism: reactions to bad party behavior and other walks on the wild side
Extremist behavior does not require logical thinking, but often dresses up and attends the party as an intellectual. Every so often I find myself at an event that has nothing to do with politics and zut alors, I realize I've been ambushed by a zealot. Suddenly bunches of data are offered in support of some sort of thinking. Only the data is couched in terms like, "I was watching the Sunday morning lineup...there were all sorts of well regarded journalists...but he said he could pretty much do whatever he wanted." This is not in fact data. But it is wearing the costume of expert opinion and it is ready to boogie.
Because you are not seated at the internet or armed with a copy of the Special Presidential Powers, He Can Do Anything Act (see next paragraph, Joint Auth), you will LOSE any argument you make in return because your data will not be as upsetting as their data. Here's how the argument starts. The president says he can do whatever he wants (who does he think he is, Oprah?). Move on to This is how he trampled all over your civil rights (not mine in fact because I am secretive and do my dirty business on the El where it's so loud, nothing can be tapped, taped or even seen as a rule, but you have the principal).
In rejoinder and because I now AM in my seat in front of the great and powerful INTERNET I refer you to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, here noted verbatim from the White House website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html. You can pretty much skip the Whereas's and go directly to the Now therefore department. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it most certainly does not say I now pronounce you King and Ruler of the Dominion. So there!
How, you may ask does this apply to art, artists, artistic voice? Well it's a reach, but this was bugging me (get it?). And I do not do my best work when I'm bewitched, bothered or otherwise betwixt myself and someone behaving badly. And besides, if Bush is King, what will we do if a tree or forest erupts on the scene? I cannot create my art when I'm worried about being ambushed at my next social affair. Pass me the crudites.
Because you are not seated at the internet or armed with a copy of the Special Presidential Powers, He Can Do Anything Act (see next paragraph, Joint Auth), you will LOSE any argument you make in return because your data will not be as upsetting as their data. Here's how the argument starts. The president says he can do whatever he wants (who does he think he is, Oprah?). Move on to This is how he trampled all over your civil rights (not mine in fact because I am secretive and do my dirty business on the El where it's so loud, nothing can be tapped, taped or even seen as a rule, but you have the principal).
In rejoinder and because I now AM in my seat in front of the great and powerful INTERNET I refer you to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, here noted verbatim from the White House website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html. You can pretty much skip the Whereas's and go directly to the Now therefore department. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it most certainly does not say I now pronounce you King and Ruler of the Dominion. So there!
How, you may ask does this apply to art, artists, artistic voice? Well it's a reach, but this was bugging me (get it?). And I do not do my best work when I'm bewitched, bothered or otherwise betwixt myself and someone behaving badly. And besides, if Bush is King, what will we do if a tree or forest erupts on the scene? I cannot create my art when I'm worried about being ambushed at my next social affair. Pass me the crudites.
Acting out and technology - shake it!
This is just a tiny personal revelation. In unprecedented diligence tonight I decided to deal with my broken iPod. The device has been spinning and hanging and generally not playing music for me. OK, it was fine, then it totally stopped about 6 weeks ago, I never really dealt with it.
For whatever reason I decided to try again tonight. I tried reformatting, looking for fixes on-line, etc. Then I recalled a friend laughing and commenting, "maybe he just body slams it, I don't know how he works on these problems." This was in reference to all broken Apple devices, small of footprint and large in popularity and annoying behaviors. So what did I do?
I shook it REALLY hard and I uttered the ultimate invective, a time honored family tradition, usually accompanied by a coy grin as if to say, "I never actually say this sort of thing." Now it's fine. I'm listening to my music even now (all files present and accounted for).
In principal, this is heartbreaking. This is not the behavior I wish to have rewarded. I tried several different ways to be logical, to be gentle, to be rational. Apparently the temper tantrum does work.
At least I didn't throw it.
For whatever reason I decided to try again tonight. I tried reformatting, looking for fixes on-line, etc. Then I recalled a friend laughing and commenting, "maybe he just body slams it, I don't know how he works on these problems." This was in reference to all broken Apple devices, small of footprint and large in popularity and annoying behaviors. So what did I do?
I shook it REALLY hard and I uttered the ultimate invective, a time honored family tradition, usually accompanied by a coy grin as if to say, "I never actually say this sort of thing." Now it's fine. I'm listening to my music even now (all files present and accounted for).
In principal, this is heartbreaking. This is not the behavior I wish to have rewarded. I tried several different ways to be logical, to be gentle, to be rational. Apparently the temper tantrum does work.
At least I didn't throw it.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Alec Guinness
"Oh, if only we had written everything down daily we could bore the pants off everyone all the time with our exactitude." From his book, My Name Escapes Me, 1996 (p.115).
and...
"It was the Daily Express, I think, which carried a banner headline which read, 'Deborah Kerr fails for the third time.' A very English assessment. She hadn't failed in any real sense (she had several beautiful performances to her credit) - she just hadn't been handed a trophy. A race or a fight or a game can be won but to call something 'the best' in the arts is absurd. I wouldn't mind betting Dickens would fail to win the Booker Price (too readable and too funny) and Turner the Turner Prize and poor Keats wouldn't even be considred for any poetry prize. And so on. I suggest that the givers of awards to actors, writers and artists should choose half a dozen, almost at random, and say, 'These are people we wish to honour - equally.'
"Geoffrey Madan, in his Notebooks, quotes a Cannon Liddon as follows: 'The applause of all but very good men is no more than the pricise measure of their possible hostility." (p.16)
and...
"It was the Daily Express, I think, which carried a banner headline which read, 'Deborah Kerr fails for the third time.' A very English assessment. She hadn't failed in any real sense (she had several beautiful performances to her credit) - she just hadn't been handed a trophy. A race or a fight or a game can be won but to call something 'the best' in the arts is absurd. I wouldn't mind betting Dickens would fail to win the Booker Price (too readable and too funny) and Turner the Turner Prize and poor Keats wouldn't even be considred for any poetry prize. And so on. I suggest that the givers of awards to actors, writers and artists should choose half a dozen, almost at random, and say, 'These are people we wish to honour - equally.'
"Geoffrey Madan, in his Notebooks, quotes a Cannon Liddon as follows: 'The applause of all but very good men is no more than the pricise measure of their possible hostility." (p.16)
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Stalking
Watching Infamous Commonwealth's production of "The Homage that Follows" yesterday led to some thoughts on how art reveals truth. The drama recounts the story of an attractive Hollywood actress, Lucy, who visits her mother to rest and recooperate. A similarly aged man, Archie is installed as farmhand. Archie is a mathmatician, not actually a farm hand type who is immediately interested in Lucie, largely for her looks. Why is a brilliant young man interested in a woman largely based on her looks? Why immediately and why are we as audience certain it's innapropriate, lacking in limits? The ending of the drama would be predictable, Archie wants Lucie, she says no, he kills her. Only the structure of the play precludes that by starting with the ending, epic-style and is told from the viewpoint of the mother start to finish.
This play resonated with me because the topic of stalking is intriguing. Why do people do it, who does it and how, what does it do to them and to the person being stalked? Stalking is behavior that is elemental, it's not 'appropriate' because it is expression of emotion that is not reasonable or rational, it is escalated to extremes, it is outside normal boundaries. It is however, authentic, if not acceptable in practice. It actually happens and documentation is increasing that there's plenty of it. Has it always been around? Does it exist more often in urban environments or environments that involve crowding or high density?
Love v. hate is always of interest, what are these emotions, what differentiates them? Are they just versions of strong emotion, two sides of the same thing? Love and hate, again, universal. We feel it as early as memory reaches backward. Babies probably feel these things. Young children state early on, "I love you" and just as easily, "I hate you", sometimes in the same minute.
Archie takes his self-loathing and heaps it on Lucy, blames her. Is she to blame, of course not, she is a new feature in his landscape. Will she change her mind if she feels guilty, is this pure manipulation? If she's guilty, will that relieve Archie of his own personal responsibility? Stalkers tend to follow a familier path. They channel strong emotion, repackage it and call it rational approach. The ones who can't verbalize or act out how they will make the victim pay, may feel the same emotions, but with no impact on the victim, is there no stalking?
This play resonated with me because the topic of stalking is intriguing. Why do people do it, who does it and how, what does it do to them and to the person being stalked? Stalking is behavior that is elemental, it's not 'appropriate' because it is expression of emotion that is not reasonable or rational, it is escalated to extremes, it is outside normal boundaries. It is however, authentic, if not acceptable in practice. It actually happens and documentation is increasing that there's plenty of it. Has it always been around? Does it exist more often in urban environments or environments that involve crowding or high density?
Love v. hate is always of interest, what are these emotions, what differentiates them? Are they just versions of strong emotion, two sides of the same thing? Love and hate, again, universal. We feel it as early as memory reaches backward. Babies probably feel these things. Young children state early on, "I love you" and just as easily, "I hate you", sometimes in the same minute.
Archie takes his self-loathing and heaps it on Lucy, blames her. Is she to blame, of course not, she is a new feature in his landscape. Will she change her mind if she feels guilty, is this pure manipulation? If she's guilty, will that relieve Archie of his own personal responsibility? Stalkers tend to follow a familier path. They channel strong emotion, repackage it and call it rational approach. The ones who can't verbalize or act out how they will make the victim pay, may feel the same emotions, but with no impact on the victim, is there no stalking?
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Artistic voice
How does the artist find her own voice? Is that voice the same over multiple medias? As a concept, I value a vocal tone that is focused but with plenty of overtones, neither breathy nor wavering in tonal focus (no guessing at what note she is singing). Agility is important, but lyricism is more characteristic. In vocal terms this is a lyric mezzo voice more than one of coluratura.
Does this correspond to photorealism in any way from a painter's perspective? How does use of decoration blue strait forward presentation of concept? Can you compare a song to a painting or photograph? How about a dance? Can a dance remind you of a painting? What references must be in place for their to be a link? "Sunday in the Park with George" - Sondheim's musings on a painting come to mind.
Does this correspond to photorealism in any way from a painter's perspective? How does use of decoration blue strait forward presentation of concept? Can you compare a song to a painting or photograph? How about a dance? Can a dance remind you of a painting? What references must be in place for their to be a link? "Sunday in the Park with George" - Sondheim's musings on a painting come to mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)