Quote of the Day

"I feel like I've learned a lesson... which is that the work's all that matters. I should not be trying to be an advocate for change. If I feel like there's a lack of vibrancy in the art form, then I damn well better deliver it myself, as opposed to bemoaning the fact that it's not there."
-- Michael John LaChiusa in today's NYTimes profile of him.

I've noticed an interesting binary opposition in my time in the blogosphere. People somehow seem to think that advocating for change in an art form publicly and actually creating said change in your artistic work are two activities that are mutually exclusive. I personally disagree. I think that having this blog to complain in day in and day out has made me a better and more creative artist, personally. But I know a lot of artists who look askance at blogging as a waste of time and energy, and I usually get at least one comment or e-mail a month that says "who gives a shit what you think, go out and direct a show!" as if it were that easy.

Anyway... interesting argument from someone whose work is regularly produced. Your thoughts?

Comments

[mattj]

I'm with you Isaac. Blogging has helped me to organize my thoughts and build my convictions to a point where I can have firm confidence in my articulation as well as artistry. To be involved in art is a political struggle as well as an artistic and personal one. You can't ignore your context.

In what way is blogging a waste of time and energy, I would like to ask these nay-sayers? Was Brooke wasting his time when he wrote The Empty Space? Or Stanislavski when he penned "My Life in Art?" Besides length, I don't see a difference here, just a different medium which is easier to access, takes less time to produce, and, potentially, can reach a bigger audience. Theatre is ephemeral and localized. Not all artists can be heard and seen everywhere. It's the nature of the beast. But blogging gives an expansiveness to artistic thought which is unprecendented.

And in response to the demand: "Who gives a shit what you think, go out and direct a show!" We say, "I will when I get the chance, but until then, theatre is the art form of communication, and I always want to be communicating.

[Dorothy]

I absolutely agree with you guys .
The work matters yes.
But this also matters. People look down on discussion and dialogue so much in this country. I don't get it.
Don't people understand that that is how we can find new forms and new ways ?
By communicating and searching with our words...

[Alison Croggon]

I discovered poetry listservs long before I found blogs, but the same issues apply. Some people (my husband Daniel Keene among them) just aren't interested in discourse, and that's fine: but for some of us it's bread and meat. Some of us writers get all lonely in our little studies... and I like the stimulus. And having to write down what I think, kind of thinking in public, where other smart people can point out your mistakes and idiocies, has made me a whole lot more articulate. Not just in writing things down, too - it extends into all sorts of unexpected areas. I'm quite sure all this talking has made me a better artist. As Dorothy says, it gives you platforms that as an artist you can leap from. Not to mention the access to all sorts of ideas that otherwise are hard to find out about. I'm all for it.

[David]

I agree with Isaac-- I think articulating your standards, artistic values, etc. actually makes you hold yourself to a higher standard. If for instance I declare the theater scene is suffering because no one has the courage to do very political plays, I had better get my own butt moving on doing some political play or know (and have known) that I'm a hypocrite. On a more positive level, talking with people about ideas generates ideas, freindships, etc. that is very healthy, builds artistic communities that make stuff together. Isn't that nice and friendly?

Ultimately, it's whatever works for you. If talking is just procrastination for you, then yeah shut up. Or if you don't like to talk about what you create and you do good stuff anyhow, then fine. But to criticize as a matter of course artists who analyze what they do is a kind of anti-intellectualism that I find really tired.

[Scott Walters]

Who was it who said something like "how do I know what I think until I hear what I say"? Probably somebody who would, if around today, blog!

[George Hunka]

As someone who has written at tedious, tedious length about aesthetics on my blog, and trying to define and redefine just what it is I'm trying to do in drama, I've found writing all this out, and writing it publicly, has all sorts of intended and unintended consequences, almost all of which are to the good. The writing and discussions introduce concentrated thinking. It does, in a way, make it more difficult to write drama, but that's only because writing about aesthetics tends to raise my own personal goals higher: not because the criticism takes the place of the creative process, but because it unconsciously informs that process.

On occasion, what I've written has been idiotic, and I've been called on it, and that's fine. And on occasion what I thought was a brilliant insight has been pointed out to me as a rather tired, cliched truism. And on occasion I cobble together something that I think is truly new, and the reaction astonishes. No, far from inhibiting the creative work, the criticism itself is creative in all sorts of ways.

[Col]

I'm grateful for the people who are dedicated to making their blogs. I like talking about these meaningful things. Especially at my day job. heh heh.