Re: RAT Thoughts for the mix

["James Lineberger" <jdline@vnet.net>]

yeah, i did my time on the street.  and i sure didn't mean to stir up such
a hornet's nest of negative reaction here, y'all go do what you like and
take what you need.  Me, I'll do likewise.  We all end up in the same place
anyways. jim lineberger
----------
> From: Troy Hollar <thollar@cohnwellspartners.com>
> To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
> Subject: RAT Thoughts for the mix
> Date: Friday, June 25, 1999 11:55 AM
> 
> "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.
>