More Thoughts On Meaning

From Matt Freeman and 99Seats. Check 'em both out.  I already posted a comment over at Matt's place but his piece has got me thinking a lot and has me posing some questions of meself, so I thought I'd focus in on the bit he's talking about that raises them for me. Matt gives us a poem he loves and a picture he loves and discusses how focusing on the meaning of the poem and the picture are beside the point.  He then discusses a play of his (which I have neither read nor heard, so none of what I'm talking about here is a critique of the play):

The play is "meaningless;" but that doesn't mean it's purposeless. I don't listen to jazz music and wonder what it means. I don't look at Jackson Pollock paintings and mine them for their subject (unless you call their subject 'other art').

I get where Matt is coming from here, but what i find interesting about this post is that other than his own play (which again I have not seen and am definitely looking forward to learning more about in the future), all of his examples of meaningless-but-purposeful artworks are in other mediums.  A poem, two paintings and jazz music are the examples cited.  Which got me thinking...

Does theatre function differently? And in what ways does it function differently?  And how does this relate to meaning?

In other words, are certain relationships to meaning more possible in other art forms?  A painting is different from a play, the way the audience interfaces with it is different. To take an obvious point, they must choose how long they spend watching it. It also never moves. Or makes any sound.  Do these technical differences change its relationship to meaning?

And what about the other question of why people experience particular mediums?  Does that change the mediums relationship to meaning (and other questions like narrative)?  Very few people listen to jazz expecting a story.  Almost everyone enters a theatre expecting one unless specifically primed to expect something else.  

I remember seeing a show by Radiohole a couple of years ago and marvelling at it, being immensely entertained by its ingenuity and genuinely delighted at it. I still wouldn't call it a play.  I'd call it a live theatrical spectacle or something like that. It had neither narrative nor discernable meaning even on a what-questions-were-the-creative-peoples--mulling-over-when-they-made-this level. It was what it was, the thing itself and nothing more.  I don't think once again this was bad, i certainly was happy to have seen it, I just don't think it was a play. Does this make my definition of what a play is too narrow? Is anything performed by live actors a play? (Uh oh, who knew this can of worms would lead us into the thickets of "what is a play?" we're really in trouble now!)

Which isn't to say that in order for something to be a play all of its meaning has to be totally clear and scrutable and it has to make sense  all the time.  An overabundance of clarity can really kill something, dramatically speaking (this would be the difference between good David Hare and bad David Hare in my book).

Part of what gets me thinking about all of this is that I tend to like visual artists like Pollack and Rothko and Rosenquist and tend to dislike more realistic and figurative ones (including the photorealists, it's not just about when the artists were working).  I really don't like narrative dance, and enjoy abstract dance. Most totally abstract, narrative free more shall we say "experiential" theatrical experiences, on the other hand, turn me off.  I really don't particular care about the meaning of lyrics to rock songs as long as they propel the song and interact with the music in a cool way (broadly speaking) but I care very much about the meaning behind language in books and plays. This is why I can't get behind a band like THE HOLD STEADY, the guys voice and their music is generic and lame, but their lyrics are awesome. It's the exact opposite of what I'm looking for.  My preferences (and again, all of these preferences are broad strokes here) change from form to form, which leads me to wonder what it is about the different mediums that leads me (and I'm going to guess many others) to have such different desires and expectations in each case.

Comments

[freeman]

Interesting point, sir. And it does come down to the unanswerable question of "What a play is." A play doesn't equal theater.

Do these things function differently? Only because, maybe, we think of them as functioning differently. If we come expecting a story, and we don't get one, we're start to think of what we're watching as "not a play." As if the algebraic equation is A Play is Something on Stage that Tells a Story.

That wouldn't work if you applied to to songs. Some songs tell stories. Others don't. Some painting show real life, others don't. If a play doesn't tell a story, though, it's not a play. We actually call it something entirely different.

I think we're very much still trapped in the idea that plays are more restricted. Some of that comes down to an conversation we all had about two years ago about how thinly defined play "genres" are.

[99]

I'm with you both on this. A play doesn't *have* to have a "story" or a "narrative" to be a play or to have meaning. There is enough room in the spectrum for all kinds of expression. But our vocabulary for discussing it is extremely restricted, and certainly our critical language is even more limited. In a weird way, it's on the artist themselves to "define" the work. Someone who writes scripts that are performed by performers, but calls themselves a performance artist and performs in a gallery is treated differently than someone who calls themselves a playwright. In some ways the work is subordinate to the artist, in terms of definition. I come at this as a way for theatre artists to better define themselves and their work. I really like the distinction of "meaning" and "purpose" that Matthew brought up. I think purpose is a more useful way to talk about it. In my opinion, art, no matter the format, *does* something. Calling it purpose makes that a bit more concrete.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the Hold Steady, though. I do admit the main thing I like about them are the lyrics and the stories they tell, and I agree on Craig's...uh...singing. Well, we can't agree on everything, can we?