Selling Out

(1) In our culture, we seem to have a firm belief in the idea of an Authentic Self. This self is some kind of Platonic version of who you are, and said AS is constantly under attack, forced to mask or hide itself in various situations. Every now and then, the AS makes some kind of comeback.

(2) In mass culture, the AS usually makes a come back in the form of being an asshole for men and being a basket case for women. Exhibit A for me would be the film Reality Bites in which Ethan Hawke's permanent adolescent is held up as some kind of great "honest" person rather than a lazy shiftless flaky prick. Exhibit B would be the television show Sex and the City, in which women are at their most honest when they are also at their most debased and desperate.

(3) Perhaps this idea of an authentic self is overrated. Perhaps, as many have been arguing on college campuses for a long time and Oscar Wilde posited in the 19th century, all we are is performance. This is of course an appealing idea for the theater director to advocate, the idea that there isn't really a true self. There is, instead, the illusion of a true self.

(4) So what becomes, then, of selling out? What of the politician who betrays their political beliefs for political expediency or the artist whose musical style changes to be more palatable? What of Liz Phair and John McCain?

(5) Perhaps the real problem with "selling out" is not that you put some sort of thick veneer over your AS, but rather that the "Sell out" version of you is as much an AS as anything else. This makes the institutional arrangement of things even more pernitious and scary, frankly. It's one thing to say that one is essentially bribed by the system into taking positions they don't really believe, or making aesthetic statements they don't really support. It's quite another (And to me, scarier) to say that one is essentially bribed by the system into actually beleiving and supporting these new things.

(6) Perhaps this is part of the problem with the whole new play development system. People I talk to who are deep in new play development (And sometimes get defensive about this sort of thing) talk about how there are plays that are worth workshopping that may never really be worth producing, but I wonder if that permanently-workshoppable status of writing has something to do with the fact that it plays aren't being written to be produced, but rather to be developed. Permanently. In other words, I think the new play development system may be changing the aesthetics of some writers and creating plays that are only really good to be workshopped. Plays that are intriguing but don't (or perhaps won't) really work on some fundamental level. And perhaps this is because the system is set up to encourage such things. So before you know it, and basically completely unconsciously, the institution of new play development in this country is changing your aesthetic. Until your "true" AS-style aesthetic is one only really suited to workshops. I offer this not as some kind of definitive indictment of new play development, or of playwrights whose work receives many workshops and few full scale productions. And I recognize that this is totally means-blind in terms of $$$ and what not. I'm just thinking out loud.

(7) And perhaps this also a problem with larger theatrical institutions having basic in-house styles and artistic prejudices. Playwrights will write a play that MTC would want to produce. Not because they are shallow, or money grubbing, or sell outs, but rather that MTC has such incredible gravitational pull that it could change the kind of play you want to write without you even realizing its happened. (this is why-- side note-- sub-15 year tenure for artistic directors, lit managers etc. is a good thing, methinks).

(8) In politics, this has ramifications as well. Calling Joe Lieberman a traitor or a sell-out is good fun and all, but I believe that he passionately believes his Republican-Lite bullshit. The idea that there is some "authentic" version of a politician is a myth that helps get people who take lousy positions elected and re-elected. This will be particularly dangerous for Democrats should Hillary Clinton run for President. Why? Becuase many on the Left think that Hillary is a closet leftist. She's not a closet anything. Look at her voting record. Look at her speeches. Make the decision that way.

(9) It's like how Andrew Sullivan defended George W Bush as a closet tolerant up until he advocated for a constitutional amendmant banning gay marriage. It doesn't really matter what GWB believes what matters is what he does because what he does creates what he believes, rather than the other way around.

(10) THis is also why Joe Klein style pining for "authetic" politicians is bullshit. And, in fact, if you look at Joe Klein's writings, what he means by "authetic" is "agrees with Joe Klein". I agree with Klein that the colsultocracy is bad for politics, but it is bad not because they cover up authentic politicians, but rather because they actually change the views and personalities of those people to be what they think the public might want. In that way, they dehumanize the politician utterly.

(11) Perhaps distancing ourselves from the assumption of a constantly-embattled AS can help us find new options for how to perform ourselves and new ways of perception in such a personality-driven culture as this one.

Comments

[MattJ]

Really interesting thoughts, Isaac.

With regards to the new play development thoughts, I wholeheartedly agree, and that's why that fabulous band of playwrights who make up 13P have come together. Their motto: "We don't develop plays, we do them."

Re: The Authentic Self. I might have to differ with you here in a basic regard. I think there is some universal in that authentic self, as well as something unique for each person. I don't think it is all through socialization that we become who we are. To an extent I agree with you, we are conditioned in such a way uniquely to be subject to our environment in ways that might close us off. But they are closing us off from something basic and instinctual, the locus of creativity, I think, which we all have, in varying levels. The question is, how do we cut through the constricting layers of a commercial society to free that impulse. There's something truly "authentic" at the heart though, that is somewhat consistent and invariable.

With regards to selling out. I've always hated that term. I mean, as a director I wouldn't doubt you'd agree with me that as much as we rag on broadway and hate its political and social power, and its disnification. Wouldn't you love to direct on broadway anbd take the opportunity in a second. The question is, once you become part of that milieu, how much of your true authentic self do you let bleed through into your art. So much more complicated than "selling out," I think.

[Lucas Krech]

Wonderful post! Authenticity is in the actions taken. This is some of what I have been trying to get at in my recent series of posts. Authenticity is a function of Being, not abstract thinking. It is true that we often ascribe traits we wish people had rather than looking at the traits they actually do have. As Worhol said "Everything you want to know is on the surface."

I further like your ideas on the non existeate of the "sell out." I will have to consider them in light of the show I am designing for the Sellout Festival. Haha!

[david h]

I think the concept of an authentic self is useful, especially in the arts. For myself (as a composer), I've found that if I write in a personally "unnatural style", it can come out sounding competent but lacking that vital oomph that makes it compelling. If I write in styles I'm more "naturally" drawn too, I'm more likely to find the oomph.

Conceiving of an authentic self is useful then in that it focuses you on the empirical instead of the abstract. Instead of judging your work by abstract or tangential criteria like "Do I seem clever enough?" or "will it sell?" you might ask "is the oomph there? Am I geniunely excited about this on a gut level?"

"Selling out" is not necessarily inauthentic or bad. It's only inauthentic and bad if you produce commercial works that aren't that good, cause you're not really that fired up about what you're creating, you're fired up about making money. But there are legions of pop and jazz legends who were classically trained. Thank goodness they "sold out" and gave us their chart-toppers instead of a tepid Symphony no. 6.

Bottom line: what works is authentic, what doesn't work is inauthentic. That's not an absolute truth, but it's a practicle one. And I think that's kind of what you were saying, Lucas, but it's natural and authentic for me to be redundant and long-winded.

[Abe Goldfarb]

I've always thought that the concept of authenticity was the basis for an astonishing amount of fraud on a personal, artistic and intellectual level. I was struck, after The Strokes first put out their anodyne, edgeless variant on garage rock, by the number of imitators (of these imitators) who followed suit by producing their songs to sound like they were played by excitable teenagers with burlap bags over their speakers. That's your indie myth of authenticity. The crappier it sounds, the realer it is.

I've never thought self-belief or passion or excitement were prerequisites for a good, useful piece of art (though it's true their absence lessens its chances of being at all tolerable). The prefab, the calculated, the "inauthentic" have thrown up innumerable terrific works, none of which have been motivated by anything but commercial concerns.

I suppose I'm saying I don't think there's an absolute or even practical truth about authenticity, but beware those vociferously professing it; charlatans beckon.

[freeman]

I was just going to add, per Lucas, the $ellout Festival is in swing. Well themed. Check it out at the Brick Theatre. Plug!

[freeman]

For the record, the entire idea that a play could be worth "workshopping" and not "worth producing" terrifies me. What sort of insane talk is that?

What, exactly, is the goal of "workshopping" then? What does it achieve?

[isaac]

It achieves more grant money to workshop plays and more institutional attention for your efforts to workshop plays.

[freeman]

Exactly. It's a self-perpetuating Grant Writing mechanism.

[Joshua James]

Jesus, Isaac, so many questions -

Idea one - if a play is worth workshopping, it should be worth doing. All a theatre development group is doing by endless workshops and readings of plays are stacking up useless credits for grant purposes. Now the development folk I know get defensive as they want to about it, but that's the end result.

Now I sure believe some plays are not worthy of prodution, so when said development person sees one and spots that it's no good, they'll say, but it's not good enough so why should we put more money into it?

Why did you workshop it if it wasn't good enough? In my experience, readings and workshops are handed out very arbitrarily, here and there, without thought to the individual qualities of the play (many times a play is workshopped mainly because the playwright or director happened to be dating the managing director, etc) - so of course most of them aren't good enough for productions because they weren't good enough to be workshopped in the first place.

Most plays are not selected for workshops or readings based on merit - they're selected for random, arbitrary reasons that usually have nothing to do with the play (we have to find a part for this board member or she's going to stop giving us money, etc)and when a play is selected for a reading or a workshop for reasons other than the nonsense, arbitrary ones (like, because, it's good) it doesn't get the attention it deserves during the workshop or reading because that process is not seen as important to the development of production worthy plays. The only time said production gets such attention are if the artistic director is directing or starring in it, or there's a star director / actor attached. Then it gets attention. The play very rarely does.

The development folk can get touchy as they like, but this is the reality of their process, it's not only been done with my work but most writers I know.

To sum up.

The problem with most development readings and workshops is that, in the beginning and the end, the play doesn't matter.

[Cris]

Having worked in a theater with one of the country's longest play development programs, I'm familiar with the benefits and short-comings of new play development and ultimately support it. However, it is generally of more use for younger (greener) writers than established ones (with some sucessful productions behind them). In beginning stages or their careers, writers could well benefit by having professional actors, directors and other artists working together on a reading or workshop to help the writer hear what he or she has. If there is an audience, the way it simply watches helps a writer know whether the work has any power to engage, and a follow-up feedback session if included can produce some additional feedback (and, inevitably, a lot of nonsense). This would explain why theaters go to great expense to invest in writers they believe in, even though the work itself may not be something that is stageworthy. Someone my theater commissioned wrote a script that was not felt ready for them, but she took it elsewhere and is better known because of it. She recently completed a second commission, had it workshopped this past summer, and having seen it I can say it is a work of art like few plays I've seen produced. All the credit goes to the writer, certainly. But in cases like this, how she got to where she is has to include all the steps. We can't just cherry-pick the career moves we find support our view of an artist's growth. The commissioning theater will produce it this season and I strongly believe the play will work its way onto schedules around the country after that. I'm sure that writer would say the development process worked, although who budged -- writer, theater or both -- would be open to debate. Quickly, a second reason a play might be workshopped but not produced, is that, although well written and viable, it has more characters and production requirements than a theater can afford within budget constraints. In this case a workshop is a chance to hear what is really in the play, perhaps entertain an adventurous audience, and give some actors a few bucks for a week's work. Hopefully the thing will prove so irresistible that the theater heads will want to figure out how to mount it. Of course, that could require some grant writing, which I'm detecting is by some opinions anathema to the artist's way.
(Great blog, by the way.)

[freeman]

Cris,

I certainly feel that you've made the standard case, with solid examples. The problem, I feel, is that new playwrights are placated and even dulled in a long process by which their work is passed around and discussed and turned into a sort of democratic process. And the prevalence of this structure, with its successes and failures, has less to do with what's best for writers, and more to do with workshopping being a cheap alternative to real production, which provides fodder for grant writing.

The "play development" world assumes that most new plays are imperfect and young playwrights should be grateful for a plethora of eyes and opinions, which will inevitably perfect and improve on the playwright's flawed subjectivity.

I would rather see a flawed full production than hear the reading of a sixth draft any day. That would be better for the writers, but it's riskier for the institutions.

[James]

That’s one of the big problems with work-shopping a script: it’s creating art-by-committee; creativity determined by mass consensus. It’s also a form of (let’s just face it and call it what it is) foot-dragging. I’m very much with Mr. Freeman: I’d rather see a flawed full production than hear the reading of a sixth draft any day.

As for the concept of selling out, hmmm…I’m not sure how to respond to that. Is your “authentic self” your uncensored political, spiritual and ethical beliefs or is your AS following your bestial and primal urges and reverting to the reptilian-stem part of your brain? Dunno, dunno. It would take me about 100,000 words or so to answer this before even beginning to come to some sort of “point.”

In terms of “selling out,” I’m reminded of the Bill Hicks line: “You do a commercial, you are taken off the artistic list forever.” The exception he makes is a young actor needing the money, but points out to people actually making a decent living off of their creative work and then doing ads for Doritos or STP. To me, selling out is compromising your own “voice” for making money.

(I have no idea about anyone else here, but I have a day job, which has nothing to do with being creative. Do I see myself as a “sell-out” when I write business stories for trade newspapers in order to pay rent and bills? Kind of, yeah. But it’s a bit of a mandatory form of selling out that most — if not all — of us have to do. I do think there’s selling out and SELLING OUT. Bob Dylan doing Victoria’s Secret ads is very much SELLING OUT [he can be forgiven, of course, if he did those ads because the IRS was banging on his door].)