[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RAT Fwd: RuT CONinterFERENCE 99 INFOmofo

R.M. has posed an interesting suggestion into what could have been yet 
another tedious rat list soapboxing: 'has rat outlived its (oppositional) 
usefulness?'

well, i don't know but i've been told that things founded upon  opposition 
only reinforce the former. just consider what the hippies, black panthers, 
and punk-rockers did for the reagan years. could it be that rat, as well as 
nonprofit theatre, only reinforces that which seems to be so despised -- the 
dreaded mainstream? the theatre of banality gladly marches on as long as 
those who want to see it destroyed recognize its existence. "to piss on the 
alter of god is still a form of prayer" -- andre gide (i think).

there is talk about theatre being alternative in form or content, but no real 
talk about how the process and cognizance of theatre essentially remains the 
same. we live in a time when we, as theatre artists, cannot see that a 
theatre is a museum is a graveyard. government funding and its realities seem 
to be a far cry from a truly critical discussion about how theatre can step 
out from the sword of progress and its inherent social dialectical hell.

we should, as rat bastards, make a serious study of the other movements 
(mostly in the visual arts or musical) that took a flight out of time: zurich 
dada; russian futurism; spanish anarchists and its interesting artistic 
legacy; lettrist and situationist international; rotten brand sex pistols; 
and contemporary movements like immediatism. we not only should ask why these 
movements "failed" (with the exception of immediatism, viva il adesso!), but 
we also need to seriously ask ourselves the question: how come a theatrical 
perspective is more often than not left behind?

the personal answers to those questions will be the difference between the 
rat conference or the rut conference.

david sinclair
currently passing through (my bowels) the city of sans fran's cisco on my way 
to detour the twenty-first century.


Historically, all sustained, alternative/oppositional arts movements have 
either fizzled out or, more commonly, they have become co-opted.  
Unfortunately, with any sort of success, the latter result is usually 
unavoidable.  Why do Paul's (sometimes apt) comments seem so threatening?  
Members of an "alternative" group are becoming anxious over criticism that 
the group may no longer be all that alternative?  Has RAT outlived its 
(oppositional) usefulness?
R.M.