RAT questions

[gaby <gaby@ratconference.com>]

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:34:24 -0700
To: nick@nickspix.com
From: gaby <gaby@ratconference.com>

Lots of engaging subjects - thank-you all!  I find the coincidental overlap
of the press/crit discussion and a dramaturgy on Dirty Little Secrets most
fortuitous; nor is the irony of discussing ones relationship to the press
in the press (rat-list included) lost on me (although I do think we should
be making distinctions between reviews and criticism and ads/publicity).
As JJ said:  

          "This is a deep conundrum which our culture has only begun to
wrestle with. All of our models--whether for social activism or the making
of art--share the assumption that publicity is ultimately good.  We don't
yet really know how to perform these activities in a world in which
publicity is inherantly corrupting and destructive. "

Re:  "Can it still be possible, we ask ourselves, to make theatre or work
toward social change in a world in which TimeWarner and Disney control the
market/information complex?" :

The answer to that questions hinges on the most difficult of concepts to
grasp -- namely audience.  Who is and whom do we want as our audience.  For
seasonal theater companies in particular that question often becomes
muddied by the quest for revenue.  While there is some targeting and
outreach, mostly, the desire is for LARGE audiences because they bring in
more income, directly and indirectly (status, grants, etc.), which in turn
affords more theater to be made.  With the growth model and our cultural
bias to 'think big' comes the inevitable comparison with mass communication
capabilities, i.e.,  'But how can theater compete?'

When it comes to audience, larger is not necessarily better or more
impacting, especially if the desired goal is change of some sort.  

To effect directed social change you first have to effect change within the
psyche of individual audience members.  And that's best accomplished 'in
person,' 'in the flesh,' that is, with as little mechanical mediation as
possible (it's why we still place a high value on face to face
psychotherapy, concert tours, motivational speaking, churches, meeting
idols in person... human contact).  Why?  Because ultimately ALL
communication is mediated and thus to some degree corrupt, so the less
mediation, the better.  Part of the reason two people miscommunicate all
the time is because of the volatility of our apparatuses, our lowly flesh,
that receives, processes and then presents these signals to our "self"; the
other part, of course, is the inadequacy of our communication tools
(language, etc.).  So our best bet of achieving the clear, truthful
communication necessary to achieve a desired change in another human is by
eliminating as much mediation as possible.  It's easier to "reach" someone
the less far apart you are - one of the reasons Michell convened a meeting
with the press and reasonably requested for the press to meet more often
with his theatre.  The quest for truth and accuracy.

So a theater sized audience is good for reaching out.  But then there's the
next problem.  Since 'audience' is indeed not a monolith but  composed of
individuals who are completely unpredictable, even to themselves, whom do
we want in our audience.  Does it matter?  Next November 3rd a production
of "Come Back Little Sheba" might have only three people in the audience
one of whom will be moved to become the next Mother Teresa another to open
up uzi-fire at the local McDonalds.  You'll never know what caused that
particular reaction on that particular night in that particular person, but
you certainly effected social change.  Whether you ignite the first light
bulb or place the proverbial last straw is a crap-shoot.  All you can do is
your work, as Mitchell says.

But I do think that part of the process of creating is speculating on how
and by whom you would like that creation to be received.  

        "And on a deeper level, I wanted to encourage people to wonder,
after they found themselves "caring," who it was they were actually caring
about... "Who the hell is Pam Anderson or Frank Sinatra, anyway...?" "

QUESTION:   When you pondered this, who were you imagining the 'people' to
be?  And why do you want them wondering who Pam Anderson and Frank Sinatra
are; are you for instance inviting self-comparison in the hopes of
achieving greater personal self-awareness in your audience members - i.e.,
are you interested in effecting change and if so, what kind?