The Dangers of Hiding Out

For all that our muses require us to hang alone and commune, they drive a seductive vehicle that isolates. A prolonged journey into self can in fact be a flight of madness that serves no artistic purpose except as a quick trip to the inner scary spaces. It is within that visit that we might become inspired with new notions, but equally there might be an evil poseur using a hint of catnip to lure us over the edge. Here lies the critic in wait and she's not always helpful.

I have been exploring the effects of isolation on people during a period of great change for myself. As an introverted individual, I find periods alone essential to my well-being. However I have had to gravitate to more group activities in the last few years to find balance for creating my art and other types of work which I do alone.

During this strange period of upheaval in society it is quite easy to identify those persons who are spinning through the universe entirely alone. Some clearly lose their way. The increase of paranoid commentary, polarization in opinion sharing and a general lack in the realm of 'getting along' is making it both more and less difficult to collaborate artistically.

There are more opportunities than ever, but the dangers in the river of options are also greater. It is simple to find places of strong action and then form a reaction. This is happening all over the political landscape. New participants who have not expressed political opinions are popping up and popping each other right in the kisser.

But the realm of fewer opportunities is more troublesome yet. I would describe this space as the new political correctness. As the world becomes more polarized, the provocative artist can be viewed as the contentious artist. Never has it been so easy to invoke dem's fighten' woids just by following through on an artistic notion. And for all but the most robust this can cause us to edit ourselves to oblivion. Thus the new political correctness is utter silence, or at least trivia.

Dare I say more?

Playing in the dirt

How does working in clay employ a performative element? I think from the artist's perspective, throwing clay pots includes a luxurious component that involves the moments when the wedge actually assumes shape and becomes the basis of its new entity. There is a fulcrum for this experience. At a certain point the piece is placed squarely into its final form and all the rest of the movements are merely elements of finish, decorations, riffs on the central theme.

Size plays into where the 'selfness' of the will be realized. A small piece is truly more self-contained, has less room for those variations. A large piece can acquire a large amount of embellishment without changing at the core. But that revelatory moment of new being is in fact a performance.

Outsourcing snark centers

In reference to Scott Brown's article "Attack of the Clones" in the July issue of Wired Magazine, I wonder if it is possible to outsource cultural commentary. He posits the notion of outsourcing social commentary. How much does the bang-bang of interaction in our cultural worlds change what we feel and think. Can someone who is web 2.0 connected keep up virtually?

As a writer who does a good bit of reading, I feel that my connection to life is often fascilitated on-line, but I can't imagine jetting into town and really fitting right in.

Shoplifting

What happens when you see something you wish you had not seen? The role of theater and literature is often to examine those things we would rather leave under the big, dank rock. As a writer is it possible to write authentically if the experience is not your own? If you internalize it, rather like a method actor event, how does your own story change the pitch (think music, also think cricket as a spectator, yet it is 'so real').

And then there is the issue of validity: did I see it? Did it happen. I think I'm so rational, but when I reexamine the event it turns out my own memories betray me. Can I rely on my own data once I work through this ugly truth. What role does our subconscious play on how we portray drama?

The role of action in a plot set: am I supposed to do anything about it? The event is making my heart twist, but do I actually need to act. If my action causes future problems...blah, blah. I can see all of this in the surface of the dirt...ok clay. Is rendering in the plastic arts any different than in a performative space?

Is it worse when it happens in a family context...what role does context play? Context can make an event personal, but does that add to the experience? And then there is the role of viewer, audience participation as an anthropological take; does the audience change the experience? And post-production cocktail; viewing a dicey event, with commentary by viewers--it certainly spices up the theater in total. How does live theater differ from the stuff elsewhere?

Production Values

When I noted recently that I differentiate between production values and content I was pleased to get a response ping, although I detected a certain amount of sabor rattling to be more accurate. Sitting in the theater 3-4 nights a week, I feel there is a giant 'bounce' that occurs for most shows depending upon production values.

Why is this? Most of us are not heading out to entertainment wearing our form and analysis mindsets. Onsite evaluation of dramatic structure, pacing and character development is difficult. Somewhat less troubling is the search for good dialogue - it you are yawning by the end of the first scene, it is a good bet that character chat does not reveal character value. Authentic revelations only occur with a certain amount of trouble taken or felt by persona dramatis.

Sometimes a promising show gets a first production in really low rent circumstances and it shines because of the content of the show. The actors and director really produce authentic, believable material. The dramatic ebb and flow keep the viewer riveted, the characters have defined arcs that draw us in, the ending is pure joy. Who cares if they use only a refrigerator box, an athletic sock and a flashlight? This is based on the value of performative art delivery based on strong dramatic content and deserves its own discussion.

The import of quality content is paramount and nothing can replace it. A show that has high value content can succeed on stage, in film, on TV. It can take a small or large venue, it flexes to considerations of setting, timeframe, casting and more.

But what happens when the content is solid, but perhaps stuck in a single locale or era or only works with certain cast members? Bring on the designers! Let's have a brilliant set, costume, lighting and sound design. Smell-o-rama is in and out of vogue, but quite electrifying when used to good effect. Good design features can really pop for the audience and a slightly small show can amaze and delight, even if you cannot remember why over dinner at that cool new place.

But here's the real gist of this post. What happens when you have seriously flawed dramatic material in a design space to die for? Think of TV serials that had the 'look' that gets the viewers, but the story is so preposterous that all those gorgeous bods, clothes, houses, etc. are the same week after week? Or that uber-cool opening night where all the participants have friends in the house to give edge to the performance, but you cannot remember the main elements of the show the next day. It looked and smelled great, but your stomach is growling in the early morning.

A gorgeous gown on a runway model has to look grand on normal me in the middle of a dull winter's day, or it is not worth the price of a value meal at Mickey D's. Those luscious costumes help you hear the music of the setting, you can taste the chocolate cake. But turn off the high def, add a wobble in the image and you keep seeing the crumbs on your couch and decide a good vacuuming is in order.