|
Post by Noah on Sept 27, 2006 9:38:19 GMT -5
In theory, I agree with the principle of experimentation in the arts. The problem is that so many people in the downtown New York scene are so concerned with being artists that they completely forget to be entertainers. What the last year of immersion in this scene has shown me, among other things, is that experimentalism for its own sake is even worse than commercialism for its own sake. At least commercialism is attempting to please its audience.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Sept 29, 2006 1:42:08 GMT -5
Artists are too marginalized, largely because society marginalizes them, by making it so difficult to support onesself as an artist. This is part of why artists often see themselves as separate from society. They can also be, let's face it, aloof. They marginalize themselves. They lose the ability to create art which other people can relate to.
Good artists can think like audience members. As an audience member, I want to be entertained; I want to be moved; I want to be challenged; I want to be enlightened; I want to be informed; I want to be amused. I don't particularly want to be experimented on.
|
|
|
Post by Darius on Oct 6, 2006 13:26:06 GMT -5
I can't speak to the downtown NY scene. Or any other form of the NY scene for that matter. And I completely know where you're coming from. But I like that experimental theater happens. Even though I usually don't like it.
Experimental theater that doesn't work can be so grating and off-putting and self-indulgent and aggressive and make the audience feel separated or stupid or bored or wanting-to-leave. No question. I have no interest in seeing someon throw themselves about while shouting non-sequiters, but so intently that you feel silly not understanding what the hell is going on. And there's a lot of experimental theater that doesn't work... but there's just as much "traditional" theater that doesn't work for me, even though it's more palatable because I'm more comfortable with the format.
And when experimental theater does work!... ... ... frankly, it's still hot or miss for me personally... but I think it's so exciting when artists do something engaging and enlightening in a new way. Either enlightening about the world or about what can be done on-stage. When something is hilarious or expressed beautifully and succinctly and I can take it to my life or my artistic work. At one time, having someone speak apart from the choruis was experimental. So was never talking to the audience. So was extreme realism. So was... ... ...
I guess my two points of this suddenly overly long post are....
1) I think experimental theater is important. And in my experience, the ratio of good to bad is the same as in non-experimental theater. It's just that bad non-experimental is easier on us.
2) I think a lot of the general non-theater-going public has the misguided notion that theater is either "Hello Dolly" at the Arts Center or it's experimental feces-throwing. And there is a ton of good small, new, interesting theater happening that frustratingly doesn't fall in most people's awareness. Maybe it's different in NY.
(This was all about theater because it's the medium I work in, but I don't think my ideas are limited to that art form...)
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 8, 2006 12:19:05 GMT -5
Yes, I pretty much agree with what you're saying too. I think I was in a mood when I wrote that first post. I agree with what I said there too, but perhaps the essence of it is this: There's nothing wrong with experimentation or with making avant garde choices, as long as those choices are made in the service of the piece, and in the service of the audience. It's really experimentation for its own sake that bothers me -- when the only goal of a piece of work is obviously to shatter conventions, regardless of whether it works as something for people to pay for and sit and watch.
|
|