Politics in the theaters...Art of non-rational decision-making in the political media

After taking a nice long summer break, I'm back, having seen a huge amount of theater, new museum installations and public art beginning to address what's going on in politics. The biggest theme seems to be that people say one thing and do another.

In the theatrical realm a lot of old shows are back on the ticket if they include content on saying what you mean, doing what you say...though often the results include other behaviors. New shows are exploring people doing bad things in the name of something good and other complicated set ups leading to failed outcomes.

I've spent the last year reading Nassim Taleb (The Black Swan) and Daniel Kahnemen (www.edge.org) on psychological economics and David Brooks (NYT) on politics and the face of conservatism and the psychology of power. And recently I attended an event featuring Dan Hill and his book "Emotionomics" in which he makes an argument that rational decision making is rare and most of us make a gut decision and then rationalize that (the real decision and the good decision). All of these writers seem to have been waiting for today's events. Brooks NYT column dated 10/29 points to all but Hill as writers and I think he would be interested in what Hill has to say as a marketing consultant focusing on advertising media.

The old adage that tough times give us lots of black automobiles and plenty of cleavage is giving way to some very thinky theater and some well written journalism. I'm hoping this bodes well for the long term future. For certainly we have some more short term labor and teeth gritting to get through.

Trends: Entertainment v. Art

There is hazy dividing line in live performance between artistic endeavor and entertainment. The movies have faced this down and now the term Disnification is part of the mainstream lexicon. Art house film is differentiated from block buster styles. In live theater, especially in the musical theater genre the same dumbing down has been taking place.

Goodman's current production of Million Dollar Quartet feels like entertainment rather than art. Its Wednesday evening performance had the feel of a live concert due in part to the enthusiasm of a considerably older audience who's memories of Cash, Lewis, Perkins and Presley pre-date my own arrival on the planet. Although the show is loosely constructed as a musical with a thin dramatic movement forward which ends in the talent stable at Sun Records turning over (except for Jerry Lee), it's essentially a vehicle for covering classic rock and roll songs a la Jersey Boys, Altar Boyz and that entire genre.

I'm curious how much influence as exerted by an audience can change an experience. What is the tipping point for when a show is intended to mimick a live concert and when it becomes the live concert? The show's construction included an 'impromptu' encore to give the feel of a piece unstaged, but the "audience went wild" was something of an understatement. They wanted to be at a concert, they settled for a re-enactment.

The case for change in a world that's not for it

A good friend spent some precious hours at my place recently. He posed an enticing and intriguing question. Should he remain at our place of employment and try to enact real change from inside the machine? Is it possible to move up the ladder and truly effect global change on idealistic subjects within an organization devoted to objectives that have little to do with idealism?

For once in my opinionated life I had no answer other than to state that I was fascinated by the question and would like time to consider and another opportunity for discussion on the topic. And being me, I also said we should bring the topic up at work. Keep in mind "our place of employment" is one of those global empire shops with notions of changing the world in the name of commerce, while not making too much mess socially (is this even possible, do those in leadership even believe this intriguing paradoxical premise?). Is there truly any appetite for social change or is it just a prop to keep 'evil' out of the empire moniker?

Immediately I was internally castigating myself for waffling. My friend said he marvelled at my thought to bring it to the corporate discussion forum. Just when I think I've totally sold out, a darling political friend thinks perhaps not.

Recently on Lincoln Avenue and the Naked Bike Ride

A few days ago on a balmy evening walking down Lincoln Avenue, I was intrigued with this snippet of conversation.

"What, are we in China now?! There's a guy pedaling a rickshaw!" I cannot help but add IN TONES OF OUTRAGE. The guy was offended at a bicycle-based ride service, on a perfect night for such travel. I only caught fragments of the diatribe to follow, but it seemed to be some sort of class-based rap, how could we...wealthy, urban Chicago not only offer but suffer this option on our fancy pants bar, cafe, almost-no-one walks-here-but-for-drink-street? For moments on a warm, youth infested/invested strip of urban street, we had third-world-ism in our midst. Conversation was provoked.

In Cambodia the seductive and always quietly uttered "Tuk tuk" signals the presence of a cyclo (a 150cc motorcycle with mpg's exceeding 100) attached to a sedan cab with seats available. A beguiling ride through the streets of Phnom Penh or another large city is much more relaxing than racing around on the back of said cyclo itself or sealed inside an automobile style taxi-cab. Even better in our fair city on a relatively quiet evening to grab a seat in a mercifully silent, bicycle powered ped-cab. Never mind that growth in Asia is in double digits, while we struggle to hit 2%while continuing to live as if we too grow in double digits anywhere except at the waistline.

A bit of trivia from wikipedia -
Cycle rickshaws are known as cyclo (pronounced see-clo)
in Cambodia and Vietnam, cycle rickshaw in India and Bangladesh, trishaw traditional Chinese,simplified Chinese, pinyin: san lún che), from "tricycle rickshaw", in Malaysia and Singapore, becak in Indonesia and bicitaxi or taxi ecologico (literally "ecological taxi") in Mexico. In the Philippines, they are called tricycle/traysikel, traysikad, pedicab, or padyak. Cycle rickshaws are known as saika in Myanmar, a transliteration of English "side car". In the United Kingdom and United States cycle rickshaws are more widely pedicabs. In Buffalo, New York, this type of vehicle is known as a bike taxi. In Thailand, any three-wheeler is called samlor which literally means "three wheels"), whether motorized or not, including pedicabs, motorcycles with attached vending carts or sidecars, etc. The driver is also called samlor. True, Thai auto rickshaws are known in popular parlance as tuk-tuks, but in Thai the latter usage as well as its characteristic style is largely restricted to Bangkok and Chiangmai.

Back to Lincoln Avenue: The chatter from the more-enlightened companions of this urban traffic fashionista was in praise of bicyle culture and having additional
leisure travel options. You can see somewhat more at 4 mph than at 30, they patiently explained, while avoiding the atmospheric and wallet-draining effects of gasoline. Not to mention caloric and revenue advantages for our heroic rickshaw entrepreneur! I like to think the eye of this anti-rickshaw storm was simply providing profound possiblities of conversation and continuing thought, for which I thank him from my heart.

Minutes later, I came home to the treat of the last few moments of the Naked Bike Ride brigade parading through my 'hood, darkly and musically exuberant on joyful display. The excitement of a sudden and unexpected arrival of hundreds of cyclists, singing, whistling and yet quiet with only peddle power was magic. Maybe we are ready for change. The fact that they were gorgeously supported with full police escort on the first reasonable weather moment in our strange June through the park on Stockton added to my impression of a Brigadoon moment, soon vanished. I love my city and I'm proud of our commitment to change.

I salute those who rode! You have made my life better forever, hope is the right course. Thank you.

Around the World with Zorro

Zorro was really good. Good like an excellent cheese burger, really hot, really fresh, not perhaps all that nutritious, but oh so delicious. They really wrote/played it for laughs, but also as a real swashbuckler. The lead was remarkable, not the typical casting, very slight and elegant which was good for Don Diego, but he managed to be so adept with the sword and with movement generaly that he came across as super hero-like as Z. And this was hands down the best fight choreography I have ever seen. Which is something because the theatre only holds about 65 seats and I was in the second row.

Downside to this production: I liked it because of the superhero component. My serious theater friends were not impressed. They found it amateurish. While I think that is a bit harsh, I suspect the treatement more than the production itself lends credence to this criticism.

I was trying to think of why I thought the adaptation was so strong and I think it was because it captured a longing for passion. Passion of romance, passion to do things in aid of justice, passion for life. Again pointing to black and white, heroes, man and superman. In a world of money grubbing and daily compromise, wouldn't it be nice to be a hero?

In some ways it was an opposite treatment from Around the World in 80 Days. That show also captured my heart. 80 Days is about curiosity, says the adaptor/director. And I think she has a point. Fogg is so stuck in his life and so attached to his routine. And then he takes off on a trip around the world with only the thought to make the finish line. And yet he unthaws in the process, not so much because of what he (doesn't truly) see(s), but because of the people who join him and the awakening in him that lets in love for a woman.

Does Fogg become a hero? Perhaps not truly, but he awakens to his own heroic potential in the style of Joseph Campbell. Live your life as heroically as possible for optimum fulfillment.

To Be or Not To Be

In a comment involving an earlier post in this blog, I mentioned the word "being." Someone picked up on the term and suggested that I do a post on the subject. So here are a few angles on the word, culled from a variety of sources as best I remember them. As you can imagine it's a tough topic, and my mental pebbles are just a few from off a vast beach of them. I am setting these stones specifically inside a human context or frame. And I would be most interested in knowing whether any of the following stuff has resonance today.

To begin with, "being" is one of those words with a long history of controversy. Said differently, it's a word ancient in origin, linked to a variety of world religions and spiritualities, unable to be scientifically validated, mostly dropped from the late modern lexicon (especially in the West), and very difficult to use in a postmodern world--or so it is often thought.

So what's the word basically about--what's the reality and/or realities the word seeks to identify? Here are a few takes for reflection: the foundation brick of human existence; the nucleus of human personhood and identity; the residence of the human spirit; the rudimentary "soul" of personality; the launchpad for integrative activity; home to the mind/the will/and the affections; the anchor for what used to be called human nature; the seat of universal existential life--thereby offering common ground and a level playing field for uniting persons and and communities/cultures.

While the preceding offers interesting material to think about, "being" seems to have lost credence as a philosophical subject. However, I continue to think the word fingers something foundational, dynamic, and universal. An idea /reality still worth exploring. Now for a couple of footnotes.

If "being" is a living/breathing reality and not just a name on a page, then it seems to me that this reality oozes with implications. This includes implications for the world of art and as well as for a global world that shows itself deeply divided. Second, the whole subject prompts for me the question whether human beings are smart gorillas, or a species of life that has evolved into its own unique and/or special category/taxonomy.

Back to beginnings. "To be or not to be." What sorts of things might Shakespeare have had in mind? And Hamlet?

That's it for now folks.

The Third Culture and Living on Edge

I managed to miss the first anniversary of the blog (3/26) and clearly I have been in absentia for some time. I made a pilgrimage to Cambodia which was eye opening. I was staggered to find such a disciplined people, largely very hopeful and generally very compassionate (95% are Buddhists). There are still landmines everywhere. The jungle is a constant threat both in terms of who lives there and its ability to grab back the land and all the temples. There is not enough money to fix most things and lots of foreign types are in residence as the leadership of the country is somewhat slow to act (new king and parliament, no real war crimes tribunal, too many Khmer Rouge still around). The foreign types can be restoring temples or they can be marrying poor and poorly educated Cambodian women for a fee. Soon they will be able to buy property.

With all that, the country maintains the rice loft of the world, literally the country floods and they get a special third harvest of superior rice. As the price of rice goes sky high, this may cause interesting affluence among a people who revere their land for reasons having nothing to do with interest in affluence. I was profoundly affected by my exposure to Cambodia and Cambodians and have found 2008 to be flooded with questions about happiness, fulfillment and artistic quality of life.

This reminded me of Daniel Kahneman and the aspiration treadmill (are you happier if you aspire to higher things) and lead me to Edge's on-line presence (http://www.edge.org, which is full of interesting thoughts by scientists and art types). This treadmill was a darling idea that he and his team had to abandon, yet it holds appeal.

As an artist on hiatus, off slogging it out in the money-world for awhile, I find that my happiness quotient is always higher when I am working on a new piece or project. Although I find fulfillment in being self-supporting, my work at ye old day job is never enough to sustain and nourish me thoroughly. But as soon as I pull out the vocal instrument, my camera or pencil, brush and paper, I am back on dry land feeling Csíkszentmihályi's famous flow.

Aspiring to create art helps to make me an artist. Producing quality work is another element. Just living an artistic life is not fulfilling. Is it what I expected in my 20's when I first chose to train and work as a singer? In part yes, because I had many mentors and heavy doses of realism helped keep me centered. Am I happy when seeing myself as only a part-time artist? Not as much, but it is a continuum. Performing too much commercial work wasn't great either. But taking a break to earn a different living from full-time performing has had some unexpected permutations. Not the least of which is that it turns out I learned a lot of good business practice managing my own vocal career and someone wants to pay me for that in a different field for awhile. Is it selling out? That will be determined by sticking to the path, getting back to full-time artistic practice in the timeframe I elected to create.

Art, Living, Art of Living

It's often said of artistic works that they "take risks" or of the creative process that it requires getting "out of the comfort zone." There are also people (less likely to be the high-critic type) who seek out works that entertain and comfort them without challenging too much.

Likewise, there's a broad range of taste out here regarding how much risk is appropriate in one's life. Of course, on THIS stage a wrong note/flubbed line/misstep could lead to limitless bad consequences (and not only for the person making the choices.)

Of course, a lot of great art concerns itself with depicting people's lives, too. Some people videoblog practically everything they do, now. Others have paparazzi to do it for them. And the basic urge to live life in a way that inspires or informs or transforms others is an urge much older than those phenomena.

This is left very open to try to elicit musings and heartfelt comments.

Speaking with your characters

A daring friend suggested she might consult a character in a live theatrical production for thoughts on another character still in the making. The voice teacher in me quakes for my students when looking to a live theatrical production for character inspiration. I don't like my students to listen to other, professionally produced singers too often, or to learn a new piece by listening to someone else's recorded piece; too intimidating for most, adds to derivative interpretation for a few others.

Still, when is it possible for each of us, seeking new inspiration to populate a character, either in writing or performance, to visit with some of the current creations out and about in someone else's interpretation? When are we finally strong enough to look at someone else, have the light turn on and not find our own soul crushed?

For me the answer can be now and never, depending on the timing, the impact of the influence and how I am finding my own self to be, robust or pliable. When I am drawn strongly to someone else's work, I know that I need time and discussion to get around to understanding what those influences will do to me and what I should let them do.

The urge to have a character under one's own direction speak with another, unrelated or unlikely character is very alluring. What will 15th century French St. Joan say to my contemporary self? Will she have thoughts and conversation with my 19th century Camille? Will they get along, influence each other? Can they converse in French from different eras, or perhaps some magic meta language that is the language of inspiration itself?

I long for a series of 10 minutes plays, perhaps 3 produced together, but not the same play. The first conversation between Joan and Camille, women of passion for very different reasons. The second might be between Joan and Betty Ford. They might talk about public life, passion and the need for moderation, being taken seriously in a man's world. The last piece would feature three contemporary women, each is reading about one of the 3 women featured previously. Hmmm.