|
Having
worked at Annex for so long, I'm all for privileging the artist and supporting
their desires and their freedom to do whatever they deem necessary in the
creation of a work.
But the
play that keeps coming into my head during this argument is Hamlet. Talk
about a play rife with layers and complications and multiple
interpretations. About 100 new scholarly type papers come out about Hamlet
every year, and tens of productions with wild interpretations and
revisions and interpretations.
My
point is that even Shakespeare, to the best of our knowledge, was writing to
please his audience. It seems the middle road between "fuck 'em all, I do
what I want/masterbatory art" and "pandering to your audience" might be the way
to go.
Cara
Hey. Well, this is certainly
topical. This particular idea is part of our
apparent production
style at rm 120 theatre. In other words, the idea of our
works being
understood, or not, for that matter, is not something that we so
much
struggle with as it is something that we accept and ignore. What
interests me is not so much whether we wrestle with being "gotten" as much
as
it is something that we belligerently ignore. One wonders: are we
jacking
off? Is it important for other people to "get" our work, or
is the value of
our work not so much in the acceptance and acclaim and
recognition, etc., as
it is in the process and the exploration?
Well, you might guess what I
think. Even on my most insecure
days, when you call me on it, my answer will
always be..."Fuck 'em."
Hope I have inspired some interesting RAT contribution.
Ann
Taylor
rm 120 theatre
|