RAT Thoughts for the mix

[Troy Hollar <thollar@cohnwellspartners.com>]

"i dont give a rat's ass how you define it and how you defend it: money is
destructive to art, always has been, always will be.  Any street person can
tell you this: if you put out your hand to beg you're already losing your
identity.  And no matter how the money arrives, whether from some
corporation or council or government agency or through some benefactor who
just wants to do the right thing, it still corrupts: it corrupts
absolutely."  (Exc./J. Lineberger)

"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. " (Exc./R.M.)


Knowing Jim doesn't care how it's defined or how it's defended (an
excellent way to foment intelligent, constructive discussion):

('Course I could've been in ignorant bliss for 10 years, but) In
producing/directing more than 60 shows in NYC and elsewhere, I've never --
ever -- felt corrupted by anyone's money.  Not the NEA, not NYSCA, not the
NY Dept. of Cultural Affairs, not Miramax, not the Wallace Fund, not my
movie star friends.  Not even a guy who gave me oodles of cash to do a Mac
Wellman play a couple of years ago.  (And is Mac "alternative" even though
he's got family money?  Has it corrupted his work?  Who's to say?)  I guess
there may be one exception: the audience members, who pay and subsequently
affect performances.  No matter how you look at it, none of it happens
without at least a modicum of money trickling in.

And R.M., I wonder why you think it's unfortunate when our work gets
co-opted.  Do you mean co-opted in the sense of bastardized?  I would
submit that it's a GOOD thing if what we do makes it to the "mainstream"
(whatever that is), as long as its essence hasn't been destroyed.  Which,
of course, often (but I wouldn't say usually) happens.  And your use of the
word "usefulness" suggests that you think artists and arts organizations
should maintain the rather myopic view that art must be utilitarian.

Frankly, I love it when I spend an evening in a RATty theater experiencing
good work with a house crammed with "mainstream" "consumers."  Anytime
(without exception) I've brought anyone who fell into that pigeonhole to an
"alternative" show, they've responded with real interest (and less cynicism
than I usually equip myself with) to the work.  In general, my investment
banker friends respond with as much zeal, thoughtful discussion, and
sensitivity as do my colleagues.  Of course it's the quality, not the
quantity, of those three that counts, but you get my drift.  Frankly, I
think it's sad when a show ends up playing exclusively to colleagues.  It's
like proselytizing converts.

If ever we grow ashamed of eventually making money from what we do, or
having a wider audience, or becoming legendary through our "alternative"
work, lest we remember Wallace Stevens, Anton Chekhov, Audre Lorde,
Adrienne Rich, Andre Breton, Pablo Picasso, Igor Stravinsky, Anais Nin, and
Lou Reed.  Just to name a few.

Troy

P.S. Jim, have you spent time on the street?  My experience is that what
you're suggesting about "street" people is not true.