N.E.A. news

[DgSWEET]

From today's TIMES:

Before heading out on the campaign trail today, Mr. Clinton signed
just the third of 13 appropriations bills that must reach his desk
before Congress adjourns — the bill financing the Department of
the Interior and related agencies. But he did so only after his
negotiators had extracted key concessions.

The bill contained the first aid increase for the National Endowment
for the Arts since Congress proposed eliminating it in 1995.

To which I add: Yea.

Now, let's watch Karen and Pizza and Eagle pile on and squawk.

[Karen Horn]

DgSWEET <dgs...@aol.com> wrote:
:
: Now, let's watch Karen and Pizza and Eagle pile on and squawk.
:
:

Jeff, right now, the only thing I'm concerned about is that the
rf'er pack his duffle bag and get TFO come Jan---They'll have
to call in an exorcist after his gang leaves office.

[Pizzaman95]

In article <20001012180758...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, dgs...@aol.com
(DgSWEET) writes:

>
>From today's TIMES:
>
>Before heading out on the campaign trail today, Mr. Clinton signed
>just the third of 13 appropriations bills that must reach his desk
>before Congress adjourns — the bill financing the Department of
>the Interior and related agencies. But he did so only after his
>negotiators had extracted key concessions.
>
>The bill contained the first aid increase for the National Endowment
>for the Arts since Congress proposed eliminating it in 1995.
>
>To which I add: Yea.
>

>Now, let's watch Karen and Pizza and Eagle pile on and squawk.

Jeff,

15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. You know full well that we
never expected an end to public funding via the NEA. Our was a theoretical
debate based on what the role of the feds should be. Frankly, the NEA funding
is lost in the rounding and in this appropriations season as in the past, WJC
has shown a willingness to horse trade and when you compromise, you can't
win 100% so, let's all be happy that he signed some appropriations bills.

[pfdocwilson]

"Karen Horn" <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
news:8s5di6$r3a$1...@thoth.cts.com...
> DgSWEET <dgs...@aol.com> wrote:
> :
> : Now, let's watch Karen and Pizza and Eagle pile on and squawk.

>
> Jeff, right now, the only thing I'm concerned about is that the
> rf'er pack his duffle bag and get TFO come Jan---They'll have
> to call in an exorcist after his gang leaves office.

Karen never disappoints, does she?

Doc

[pfdocwilson]

National Endowment for the Arts Receives $7 Million Increase

First appropriations hike since 1992 will fund community outreach and arts
education projects

October 5, 2000

Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Senate passed appropriations legislation
granting the National Endowment for the Arts a $105 million budget for
Fiscal Year 2001, giving the agency its first budget increase in eight
years. The measure was passed by the House on Tuesday and President Clinton
is expected to sign the legislation shortly. The $7 million spending hike
will fund community outreach and arts education projects as part of the
NEA's Challenge America initiative.

"This is a tremendous victory," said Bill Ivey, Chairman of the National
Endowment for the Arts. "It is the culmination of a decade-long fight in
which the President, our supporters in the House and Senate and many
thousands of citizens working at the grass-roots level fought and won a
battle to protect our nation's continuing investment in arts and culture. It
is the beginning of a restoration process that will enable all Americans to
benefit from our country's rich and varied living cultural heritage."

The $7 million budget increase will fund community outreach and arts
education projects as part of the NEA's Challenge America initiative.
Challenge America will connect arts organizations more closely with families
and communities, provide access to the arts in underserved communities and
encourage the development of cultural organizations.

The Arts Endowment has received flat funding of just under $100 million for
the past five years. The agency's funding peaked in 1992, with $176 million.

More information on Challenge America is available on the Web site.

http://www.arts.gov/endownews/news00/Funding.html

Paul ("cite your sources") Wilson
Fayetteville, NC

[pfdocwilson]

> Politics is only the end result of the
> dominant philosophy of the culture.

"Politics is the art of the possible"
"Politics is not an exact science."
"Politics ruins the character."
and
"The luxury of one's own opinion."

All by Otto von Bismarck.

Doc

[pfdocwilson]

Sorry if this has already been posted and dealt with on this n.g., but as several people have been more than willing to point out, I'm a "newbie" on this group.

 

I also like to share my some of the reading which informs my thinking:

 

A STATEMENT FROM THE DRAMATISTS GUILD OF AMERICA

 

The decision by the Gregg County Commission to withdraw $50,000 from its support of the Texas Shakespeare Festival following a production of the play Angels in America at Kilgore College because the same individual heads both groups hits us—and, we hope, you—where we live.

 

This is not because we at The Dramatists Guild of America like or dislike the play, but because we dislike—intensely—the government telling the people of Kilgore—or anywhere—what they can and can’t see. By withholding funds, the Gregg County Commissioners create a chilling effect on every artist, telling them in effect, "You better not paint any painting, write any poem, mount any play, compose any music, or design any building that we don’t approve of, or we’ll shut you down." It’s not far in this repressive philosophy to the next step, which might include "or say anything we don’t approve of."

 

Freely-elected governments fund the arts not to espouse any specific dogma but (a) to enlighten the public by encouraging points of view different from the commercial mainstream and (b) to ensure free artistic self-expression—which includes free speech—in the community. The need for self-expression is as old as mankind. The right to self-expression is a relatively new concept and such a political hot potato that even today it is fiercely challenged in most countries of the world. As Americans, we owe much to those with the foresight to make it law 212 years ago.

 

Since its inception in 1919, The Dramatists Guild of America, which currently numbers more than 6,000 playwrights, composers and lyricists writing for the theater, has consistently recognized the need for and championed the right of artists to express themselves freely. What may be surprising is that we also recognize the need for and champion the right of the audience to express itself freely.

 

The administration of Kilgore College has admirably demonstrated its support for free expression, and its concern for the arts in your community, by courageously refusing to cancel the college’s production of Angels in America. As citizens of Kilgore, however, you have admirably demonstrated your concern for the arts in your community, both pro and con, as well. We wholeheartedly support your right to freely express your applause or your protest—in the latter case, by picketing, boycotting, demonstrating or just not going to the theater. We even support the right of the one imaginative gentleman who bought all the tickets for a single performance so no one could see the play. And we would certainly support a play which challenged the ideas in this one.

 

What we cannot—and do not—support is the attempt by any government—as small as Kilgore’s or as large as the People’s Republic of China’s—to influence what specific play, painting, music, television, or point of view its citizens are allowed to experience.

 

As it happens, Angels in America is a much-praised and -awarded play with much to say about the human condition. But the merit and subject matter are irrelevant. What is important is that you—we—not allow our government to tell us what we can and cannot see, whether it is the Soviet Union suppressing Doctor Zhivago, the Clinton administration’s attempt to censor the Internet, or the Gregg County Commission’s effort to prevent your seeing works of art it doesn’t agree with.

 

Betty Comden, author of Peter Pan and Singing In The Rain
Lynn Ahrens, author of Schoolhouse Rock
Sheldon Harnick, author of Fiddler On The Roof
Alfred Uhry, author of Driving Miss Daisy
Arthur Laurents, author of West Side Story
David Shire, author of Big: The Musical
Thomas Meehan, author of Annie
and the Council of the Dramatists Guild of America

 

http://www.dramaguild.com/docs/kilgore.htm 
  

[eagl...@my-deja.com]

Horrible, horrible day in the news today, that's all I can say. The
problem of the existence of the NEA really really pales today.

I don't think the NEA will ever die because some politicians pull the
plug on it. The NEA will only die when it becomes irrelevant -- when
society matures enough to realize that more can be accomplished for the
good of all by allowing freedom (limited, of course, to respect for
individual rights) than by the use of force. Too many vested interests
want to keep the NEA afloat, so a change won't happen overnight.
Society has to change first. Politics is only the end result of the

dominant philosophy of the culture.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[DgSWEET]

>Jeff, right now, the only thing I'm concerned about is that the
>rf'er pack his duffle bag and get TFO come Jan---They'll have
>to call in an exorcist after his gang leaves office.

You might find Joe Klein's article in the current NEW YORKER interesting.

[DgSWEET]

>15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. You know full well that we never
expected an end to public funding via the NEA.

Never said you did. But it's good news for me, ya know. I believe in the
agency. I think it's done good things for the arts, the artists and the
public, so I applaud the increase, however modest.

It's particularly fitting in the wake of Sidney Yates's recent death. A nice
memorial.

[DgSWEET]

>The NEA will only die when it becomes irrelevant -- when society matures
enough to realize that more can be accomplished for the good of all by allowing
freedom (limited, of course, to respect for individual rights) than by the use
of force.

Well, I truly hope that someday it becomes irrelevant and that this society
learns to value what is truly valuable by giving it appropriate support. Till
then, though --

I wish we had as active "vested interests" as those that dole out so much
corporate welfare and support plans like building a stadium on the West Side of
New York to help make Steinbrunner richer. THAT's what I call "vested
interests."

The day: agreed, horrible, tragic, appalling.

[Karen Horn]

DgSWEET <dgs...@aol.com> wrote:
:
: I wish we had as active "vested interests" as those that dole out so much

:corporate welfare and support plans like building a stadium on the West Side of
: New York to help make Steinbrunner richer. THAT's what I call "vested
: interests."

BTW Jeff---I'm against corporate dole for baseball owners too---voted
against the bonds for the new stadium to be built in San Diego.

Karen

[eagl...@my-deja.com]

Folks,

Haven't read the book yet myself, but here's a pertinent article to our
discussion (debate, wrangle, battle -- whatever you want to call it):

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/10/12/munson/index.html

It's worth examining the fact that the NEA, to my knowledge, has never
defined exactly what art is -- only that it would support "artistic
merit and excellence." But that is an evaluation according to some
standard, but not a standard in itself. If ANYTHING is art just
because an "artist" says it's art, then how does one evaluate it as
having "excellence" or not? Excellence according to what standard?
What's the essential difference between very bad art and something that
isn't art at all? I'm not talking about what art DOES -- that it
challenges society's attitudes, for instance. It might. But art can
also inspire. How does one define what "art" IS?

[eagl...@my-deja.com]

Interesting article about Holly Hughes' hypocrisy, for those who care:

http://www.reason.com/0010/fe.td.angry.html

[Noel Katz]

The federal government spends billions upon billions of dollars developing new
weapon systems that I can't begin to understand. I just have to trust that
they've hired the experts to make the best decisions, and hope that the many
hundreds of my tax bill that this involves are well spent.

I understand how foes of government arts funding are disturbed by the lack of a
clear definition of what art and artistic excellence are. Luckily, as with
those assumedly necessary weapons systems, the government hires experts to
choose the institutions (and, occasionally, artists) that get federal funding,
and it costs me pennies a year.

http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html

[DgSWEET]

Eagle --

The article is interesting, though I disagree with some of what she says.

"But politics and art are two very different things and to confuse them is very
dangerous for both." This is a patently silly statement. Politics is a social
phenomenon and much of art (particularly the performing arts) is, too, so
inevitably the arts are going to frequently engage political issues. To
suggest that art should steer clear of politics is to cut off subject matter
that has inspired much good work. Shakepare's histories are certainly
political. Daumier's work, too.

Art is a combination of intention and reception, to my mind. If you intend to
make art and a significant part of the audience receives it as art, then it's
likely you have made art. It shouldn't be accidental or natural (a sunset,
while beautiful, is not art), it should at least involve choice and
point-of-view (a painting of a sunset could be art). If you make what you
think is art and nobody else thinks it is, at best you've made failed art.

Obviously it's easier to appreciate something as art if it falls into
established forms of composition and distribution. A theatre piece that is
performed in a conventional theatre is more easily perceived as a play than a
happening staged by some avant garde group in the middle of an audience that
didn't know they were going to be an audience.

Yes, there is some trendy stuff going on, some of it silly. But some of it
also acts as research and development and ends up being incorporated into more
mainstream stuff. If you saw A CHORUS LINE you saw elements of staging
appropriated and adapted from work by the Living Theatre in the Sixties, for
instance.

[eagl...@my-deja.com]

In article <20001013092447...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,

dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET) wrote:
> Eagle --
>
> The article is interesting, though I disagree with some of what she
says.
>
> "But politics and art are two very different things and to confuse
them is very
> dangerous for both." This is a patently silly statement. Politics
is a social
> phenomenon and much of art (particularly the performing arts) is,
too, so
> inevitably the arts are going to frequently engage political issues.
To
> suggest that art should steer clear of politics is to cut off subject
matter
> that has inspired much good work. Shakepare's histories are certainly
> political. Daumier's work, too.
>

If she really intended to say that art should steer clear of politics,
then I agree with you that it is silly. However, in the context of the
whole article, I think what she probably meant by "politics" is not the
content per se, but the inevitable politicization of art via government
support for the arts -- like the battles the NEA has had to go through
over censorship and the threat of reduced funding, which turns art into
just another political football. She might have been trying to convey
the idea that support for the arts and GOVERNMENT support for the arts
are not synonymous, which I would agree with. But having not read her
book, I can't say for sure what she really meant.

> Art is a combination of intention and reception, to my mind. If you
intend to
> make art and a significant part of the audience receives it as art,
then it's
> likely you have made art.

But if the audience reception to a supposed work of art is an important
element in judging whether it indeed IS a work of art, then how can
government arts funding panels judge a submission as being a work of
art, or even as having "artistic merit and excellence" BEFORE it's
received by a significant part of the audience?

It shouldn't be accidental or natural (a sunset,
> while beautiful, is not art), it should at least involve choice and
> point-of-view (a painting of a sunset could be art).

I agree with you that it shouldn't be accidental or natural. But a
number of writers I know think that making conscious choices about what
they're writing about would be antithetical to the creative process,
and they encourage "accident" in art and letting the "natural" muse
simply work through them.

I also agree that having a point-of-view is important. But I also know
a number of writers who think that the artist shouldn't have a point of
view of the subject matter they present, and should let the audience
decide for themselves how to interpret it. I even remember a "New York
Times" interview with the creators of "Assassins" (when it premiered at
Playwrights Horizons), where Sondheim and/or Zaks expressed similar
sentiments that it wasn't their job to have a viewpoint about the
subject, but for the audience to make up their own minds instead. I
don't buy that argument. A writer writing about a certain subject is
assumed to have at least thought about the subject more than an
audience member would, so if there ARE any conclusions to be drawn,
shouldn't the writer be in the best position to state them? The
audience will make up their own minds regardless of whether or not the
artist clearly states their point of view on the subject. I can see it
being more consistent to say that the audience should only contemplate
the subject matter, as the writer has, and shouldn't draw any
conclusions either -- but that's not what most people argue.

I don't think a writer can really get away from having some point-of-
view, whether they admit it or not. There's a point-of-view implied in
just the choice of subject matter, if not in the style of
presentation. But even if the point-of-view is to try and not express
any point-of-view -- well, that's a point-of-view in itself.

> If you make what you
> think is art and nobody else thinks it is, at best you've made failed
art.
>

It depends on what "you" think art is. Just because "you" do it
doesn't make it art in itself. If I say that spitting is art, and I
show you all the different creative ways I can spit, but I can't
convince anyone else that this is art, is it just failed art, or am I
really a con artist, and how would you tell the difference? On the
other side -- in the context of Vincent Van Gogh's time, he may have
called his work art, but few others thought it was then, so in the
context of his own time, did he make failed art?

> Obviously it's easier to appreciate something as art if it falls into
> established forms of composition and distribution. A theatre piece
that is
> performed in a conventional theatre is more easily perceived as a
play than a
> happening staged by some avant garde group in the middle of an
audience that
> didn't know they were going to be an audience.
>

True.

> Yes, there is some trendy stuff going on, some of it silly. But some
of it
> also acts as research and development and ends up being incorporated
into more
> mainstream stuff.
>

The NEA is supposed to fund works of "artistic merit and excellence."
Do you think it should also be funding works that are for "research and
development" as well?

[DgSWEET]

>But if the audience reception to a supposed work of art is an important
element in judging whether it indeed IS a work of art, then how can government
arts funding panels judge a submission as being a work of art, or even as
having "artistic merit and excellence" BEFORE it's received by a significant
part of the audience?

See, this is what makes me suspect you don't know what the NEA is about.

Most of the money goes to funding institutions' operating costs and educational
arms. There has been no direct funding of individual artists for years.
(Which I regret. I got one of those grants years ago and it made a major
difference in my career.) And when those grants were made, they were made on
the basis of past work. Somebody was likely to be a candidate for funding
because they had a track record of well-received work in their field --
productions, exhibitions, etc. -- as well as being reviewed by a peer group. I
remember that one of the judges for my award was Romulus Linney. Very
satisfying because a) I think he's an important American dramatist and it was
nice to have him express a good opinion of my work through his recommendation,
and b) after getting the grant I met him, we became friendly, and he ended up
hiring me to teach at the Actors Studio, which is a significant chunk of my
livelihood these days. So the NEA experience was plenty positive for me. But
I got that grant because a play of mine called PORCH had made a bit of a stir
and, on the basis of that, the panel thought I was worth supporting.
Incidentally, PORCH is NOT an experimental play. It's very realistic, is one
long scene in real time, and has little overt political content. Not a trendy
choice at all. Just, I think, a good play. Anyway, it still gets done a lot,
thank God. (A revival is scheduled in Portland, OR this winter.)

> But a number of writers I know think that making conscious choices about what
they're writing about would be antithetical to the creative process, and they
encourage "accident" in art and letting the "natural" muse simply work through
them.

But making the choice to be open to accidents is in itself a conscious choice.
To put oneself into a state of mind in which one trusts following the intuitive
a little. Besides, you ALWAYS rewrite and clean it up. As the saying goes,
"the first draft is written by the artist, the second by the critic."

>But I also know a number of writers who think that the artist shouldn't have a
point of view of the subject matter they present, and should let the audience
decide for themselves how to interpret it.

There's a difference between having a point-of-view and overtly articulating it
in the text of the work. Every artist knows he or she has a p.o.v. whenever
you commit anything to paper. But the craft lies in not evaluating your own
work, articulating your themes, but rather in encouraging the audience to put
the pieces together for themselves. I do a lot of writing and teaching on
this. I call it putting the premises onstage and leaving the conclusions to
the audience. If you put the premises onstage correctly, most of the audience
is indeed going to arrive at the conclusions you intend. But it's better to
let the audience figure it out than to write a speech articulating the theme.
Doing the latter results in preachy, tedious plays.

>I even remember a "New York Times" interview with the creators of "Assassins"
(when it premiered at Playwrights Horizons), where Sondheim and/or Zaks
expressed similar
sentiments that it wasn't their job to have a viewpoint about the
subject, but for the audience to make up their own minds instead.

Well, I know these guys a little and I doubt they would deny they have
viewpoints. But good theatre is about not articulating what your viewpoint is
in overt language but about encouraging the audience to create the meaning with
you in their response. They made very strong, sometimes outrageous choices
with that material which, of course, were calculated to trigger strong
responses. Making such choices presupposes a strong p.o.v. I have a hunch you
misread the article.

>so if there ARE any conclusions to be drawn,
>shouldn't the writer be in the best position to state them?

Maybe in a position, but to state them isn't very artful. you want to state
your positions, you write an essay. In the theatre, you don't articulate your
theme if you want the audience to invest in the evening. And, indeed, the
audience resents writers who are so presumptuous asto put Cliff Notes about
their own material in the text. And I resist talking about the themes of my
plays when I get interviewed. That stuff sounds pompous and off-putting in
print, and I think discourages an audience from attending.

>If I say that spitting is art, and I show you all the different creative ways
I can spit, but I can't convince anyone else that this is art, is it just
failed art, or am I really a con artist, and how would you tell the difference?

My hunch is that you might be deluded, which is something else. But some
people think that the movie TITANIC is art and there's a lot of spitting in
that.

>On the other side -- in the context of Vincent Van Gogh's time, he may have
called his work art, but few others thought it was then, so in the context of
his own time, did he make failed art?

Different ages see different works as having different values. So the artistic
status of a work is not a fixed thing but something that rises and falls
depending, yes, on how it's received by an evolving audience. Sometimes we see
things and wonder why previous audiences were so stupid as to not recognize the
palpable greatness. But this simply underscores my contention that art is in
the intermix of intention and reception. And, being so changeable, not subject
to scientific description.

>The NEA is supposed to fund works of "artistic merit and excellence." Do you
think it should also be funding works that are for "research and development"
as well?

Well, I would like it to, if it were funding people who seem to be IN THE
PROCESS of worthwhile exploration. For instance, Paul Sills has spent his life
in a constant state of worthwhile exploration. Little of his work has made a
big splash in the general consciousness, but it has influenced such more
polished pieces as RAGTIME, THE GRAPES OF WRATH, NICK NICK and endless number
of pieces developed through improvisational techniques he helped pioneer.
Funding Paul Sills would be a very smart thing, to my mind, because he has been
like Johnny Appleseed, planting trees that have borne fruit for countless
others.

[Frederick]

"Karen Horn" wrote:
> :
> : Now, let's watch Karen and Pizza and Eagle pile on and squawk.

> :
> :

>
> Jeff, right now, the only thing I'm concerned about is that the
> rf'er pack his duffle bag and get TFO come Jan---They'll have
> to call in an exorcist after his gang leaves office.

Karen, don't you ever get tired of demonizing people who you disagree with
philosophically.
I know that WE are sure TIRED of you doing it.
Just because YOU believe something, try not to be so arrogant as to think
that God or whoever is in agreement with you.
It makes you truly insufferable.

[Karen Horn]

Frederick <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:

:
:
:

Yeah, but even God's in agreement on me with this one!

[Frederick]

"Karen Horn" wrote:
> :> :

> :> Jeff, right now, the only thing I'm concerned about is that the
> :> rf'er pack his duffle bag and get TFO come Jan---They'll have
> :> to call in an exorcist after his gang leaves office.
> :
> : Karen, don't you ever get tired of demonizing people who you disagree
with
> : philosophically.
> : I know that WE are sure TIRED of you doing it.
> : Just because YOU believe something, try not to be so arrogant as to
think
> : that God or whoever is in agreement with you.
> : It makes you truly insufferable.
> :

> Yeah, but even God's in agreement on me with this one!

The frightening thing about your post, Karen, is that you actually believe
it.
For a person who loves musical theatre, you're otherwise a disgrace.

[pfdocwilson]

<eagl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s6u46$e79$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> Interesting article about Holly Hughes' hypocrisy, for those who care:
> http://www.reason.com/0010/fe.td.angry.html

This was a very interesting take on the issue. Thanks for sharing it. It's
nice to read something that has a definite point of view without being
shrill and strident about it.

Doc

[pfdocwilson]

> But if the audience reception to a supposed work of art is an important

> element in judging whether it indeed IS a work of art . . .

 

No.  Absolutely not.  Art is a process, not a qualitative judgment on the product.  If the audience doesn't "get it," or rejects it, then the something in the process has failed.  It could be technical incompetence on the part of the artist, or failure to match intention with execution, or the audience is way too far ahead of the audience, or the audience is way smarter than the artist -- hundreds of reasons.  Sometimes you can change part of the process, and everything finally clicks where it seemed hopeless before.  Chekhov's THE SEAGULL was a bomb the first time out.  Stanislavski got hold of it and it ended up making history.  Van Gogh sold one painting in his career; Seurat didn't sell any.  If we had relied on the _original_ audience's judgment on those works, or any works that "failed" the first time out, we wouldn't have anything in the museums more than a generation or two old.  Conversely, things that were smash hits a hundred or two hundred years ago can't get arrested today -- seen any good Pixerecourt lately?  Even in a non-profit theatre dedicated to the classics?   

 

> then how can
> government arts funding panels judge a submission as being a work of
> art, or even as having "artistic merit and excellence" BEFORE it's
> received by a significant part of the audience?

The artist has to have a track record.  And has to have enough of the design and planning done to be able to describe it somehow.  Nobody applies for a grant saying, "I think I'd like to do a painting, of something ... you know, maybe a lake with trees?  Maybe mountains?"  "Well sir, what have you done in this genre before?"  "Oh, not much, I drive a bread truck in Flatbush.  I just thought it would be kinda fun, you know, kinda easy, like that guy who used to be on PBS."

 
> I agree with you that it shouldn't be accidental or natural.  But a
> number of writers I know think that making conscious choices about what
> they're writing about would be antithetical to the creative process,
> and they encourage "accident" in art and letting the "natural" muse
> simply work through them.

This is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- horse puckey.  There ain't no such animal.  There isn't an artist who has ever lived who did not have a command of technique, even if they couldn't quantify or describe it.  Art is nothing _but_ making conscious choices.  The "muse" only strikes artists who know how to recognize her when she's in the neighborhood. 

 

If I were of a cynical bent, I would ask how many of the writers you know make a steady living at it?  "Accidents" benefit of the "natural muse" do happen, but inevitably they're one-hit wonders.  The process doesn't work unless you can do it when the muse _isn't_ there.  (Greatest definition of what makes a professional was once given by an NFL football player -- name escapes me at the moment, sorry, but it was about twenty years ago: "A professional is a guy who can do it even when he don't feel like it.")

 

> I also agree that having a point-of-view is important.  But I also know
> a number of writers who think that the artist shouldn't have a point of
> view of the subject matter they present, and should let the audience
> decide for themselves how to interpret it.  I even remember a "New York
> Times" interview with the creators of "Assassins" (when it premiered at

> Playwrights Horizons), where Sondheim and/or Zaps expressed similar

> sentiments that it wasn't their job to have a viewpoint about the
> subject, but for the audience to make up their own minds instead.  I
> don't buy that argument. 

 

And rightly so -- audiences quickly caught on that Sondheim, Weidman and Zaks had no idea what they wanted to say about the material.

 

> A writer writing about a certain subject is
> assumed to have at least thought about the subject more than an
> audience member would, so if there ARE any conclusions to be drawn,
> shouldn't the writer be in the best position to state them? 

 

Not to state them, but to know what they are.  There's the story of Alan Schneider going over to France to talk to Beckett about the American premiere of WAITING FOR GODOT.  The first question in his notebook (which may or may not have been suggested to Schneider by Thornton Wilder on the boat going over) was "Who or what is Godot?"  Beckett said "If I knew I would have put in the script."  Schneider threw out the notebook and started from scratch.  But Beckett knew -- he knew enough to write a work based around that central image -- but he also knew that to label it is to render it meaningless as a metaphor.

 

> The audience will make up their own minds regardless of whether or not the
> artist clearly states their point of view on the subject. 

 

This is unclear -- the artist will clearly state the artist's p.o.v., or the audience's?  At any rate, if it need program notes to explain what it means, I'm tempted to ask for my money back.  Krystof Penderecki's THRENODY FOR THE VICTIMS OF HIROSHIMA, certainly an avant-garde piece when I heard it thirty years ago, needed no program notes.  The hoi polloi might not have heard the drone of the B-29s in the low notes, or the screams of the victims in the high notes, but the horror was there.  Penderecki didn't need to explain it.

 

> I can see it being more consistent to say that the audience should

> only contemplate the subject matter, as the writer has, and shouldn't

> draw any conclusions either -- but that's not what most people argue.

 

Conclusions about what, though?  The artist's intent?  His/her form of expression?  Mastery of technique?  And the main conclusion -- did it work?  There's a painting hanging in the collection of the North Carolina Museum of Art in Raleigh of a seated woman, knees drawn up, head down, wet hair flowing down over her face, on the front porch of a weathered old house on the seacoast.   Her dress looks like it might be crusted with drying salt water.  She is holding a bone: could have been human, or not.  I studied the painting for a long time, and then started studying the people walking by as they looked at it.  Very few people gave it more than a second glance, and those that did usually read the credit plaque.  When they didn't recognize the name, they moved on.  They had no referent for the metaphor the artist was presenting.  If you can draw a conclusion (your metaphor from his metaphor; your image from his image) then it works. 

 

I happened to be writing a play about a murder on the Outer Banks, and that image connected with me in a way I'm sure it connected with no one else.  I have no idea what the artist's intention was -- the image I saw was powerful enough to have a visceral effect on me without any specialized knowledge.

 
> I don't think a writer can really get away from having some point-of-
> view, whether they admit it or not.  There's a point-of-view implied in
> just the choice of subject matter, if not in the style of presentation.

 

Style and genre imply a point of view as well.  You choose a serious point of view, you're saying we live in a world where the consequences of our actions must be taken seriously.  A comic point of view says things are never as bad as you're afraid they're going to get. 

 

> But even if the point-of-view is to try and not express
> any point-of-view -- well, that's a point-of-view in itself.

I frankly do not see how it can be done.  You cannot be detached and create a work that will engage.  (My dissertation prof said, "better make sure you work on a topic that, if it were a woman, you'd want to sleep with it every night, because face it, you're going to be living with it for five years.")  If you don't really care about the imagery and metaphor of battles between alien empires in a time long, long ago, and far, far away, then you'd better not set out to write the movie.  Or if you really feel that the problems of two little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, then don't start writing.  Period.

 

> It depends on what "you" think art is.  Just because "you" do it
> doesn't make it art in itself.  If I say that spitting is art, and I
> show you all the different creative ways I can spit, but I can't
> convince anyone else that this is art, is it just failed art, or am I
> really a con artist, and how would you tell the difference? 

 

If you can show us way to spit or even think about spitting that we've never seen, nor has it ever occurred to us that something like your technique could ever be done, or if you can get some kid to say, "hey, I can do that," then you're on to something.  I saw a street performer in Paris outside the Pompidou center who could contort his body in what looked like the most excruciating ways.  He never stated it in his line of patter, but the point was clear -- the human body is capable of some incredible things.  And the joy he sustained through every moment of the performance also implied that the spirit, therefore, is also capable of some incredible things.  I got more joy out of that performance than I did in almost anything else I saw in Paris that trip.  

 

> On the other side -- in the context of Vincent Van Gogh's time,

> he may have called his work art, but few others thought it was

> then, so in the context of his own time, did he make failed art?

If you look at his work in the context of product, yes.  In the context of process, no.  The better illustration may be Seurat, as dramatised by Sondheim & Lapine.  George 1 is no schmoozer, lives totally for his art, a bit of a schmuck in the way he treats Dot ("Louis will be an excellent father because I cannot look up from my painting.")  George 2 _is_ a schmoozer, has superficial relationships, and creates immensely popular and expensive works over and over again.  But George 1 connects with his art; George 2 cannot.  George 1 believes in his art and that is all that matters; George 2 has lost the connection and knows unless he finds it again, no one will remember him as they remember his great-grandfather. 

 
> > Obviously it's easier to appreciate something as art if it falls into
> > established forms of composition and distribution.  A theatre piece
> > that is performed in a conventional theatre is more easily perceived

> > as a play than a happening staged by some avant garde group in

> > the middle of an audience that didn't know they were going to be

> > an audience.

 

Doesn't even have to be performed in a conventional theatre -- but the audience needs to know that they will be asked to play the role of an audience.  I teach my students there are five things you need for theatre: an actor and and action to perform, an audience, an area which everyone is aware will be a performance space, but also the awareness that it is a theatrical event they will be asked to observe and respond to.  The audience who says "I want them to wonder if it's real or not" is a fraud; the artist who says "I don't really care about the audience" is a fool or an idiot.

> The NEA is supposed to fund works of "artistic merit and excellence."
> Do you think it should also be funding works that are for "research and
> development" as well?

 

Look at the lists of their grants -- education and outreach make up the bulk of them.  They're giving the artists a chance to get their work out there, but more importantly, they're getting to art to young people and other under-served audiences.  Among those groups we hope to find not only the next generation of artists, but the next ten generations of informed, discerning audiences.

 

I don't give a damn if my department never sends a student on to audition for a Broadway show.  It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen.  What I want to do is make sure that when all those Professional Golf Management majors and Physicians Assistant's majors get their $40,000 entry-level jobs, that they'll steer a few of their entertainment dollars our way and have their fannies in our seats.

 

(And please, dear God, have enough sense NOT to give a standing ovation for every single performance of every single show in the local house whether it's ROMEO AND JULIET or 1776 or BEEHIVE or PHANTOM OF THE COUNTRY OPERA.)

 

It might help to think of the NEA not as an organization that simply gives money to artists, but as an organization that puts artists in underrepresented disciplines, styles, and formats together with audiences who have few preconceptions about what they're supposed to like because of what's the flavor of the month.  New artists + new audiences = a whole new artistic process, which in the long term _will_ get the art back to the people where it belongs.

 

Doc

 

[pfdocwilson]

please correct

"or the audience is way too far ahead of the audience"

to read:
"or the artist is way too far ahead of the audience"

The Ambien is starting to kick in.

Doc

[eagl...@my-deja.com]

In article <20001013123237...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,

I went and looked up the article about "Assassins." Here is what I was
referring to ("New York Times" Arts and Leisure Section, January 27,
1991):

"'The piece should speak for itself,' Mr. Sondheim says. 'We don't
want to tell people how or what they should think about. We don't want
to preach or promulgate.'

And then the composer, who has presented his audiences with so many
challenges over the years, gently issues another, 'What would be nice
is to tell them to take the journey with us," he says. 'It's a real
roller-coaster ride.'"

I understand your argument: "If you put the premises onstage correctly,

most of the audience is indeed going to arrive at the conclusions you

intend" (although I'm not certain exactly what you mean
by "correctly"). And I generally agree that preachy speeches are
ineffective (although in Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged" -- second
only to the Bible in being cited as a book which has most changed
people's lives -- Rand goes on for 60 pages in a speech that very
explicitly "tells" her audience what she's trying to convey -- so
there's always an exception to every rule). But it strikes me as a bit
less than candid to say of one's intentions, "We don't want to tell
people how or what they should think about." Of course they do -- just
not overtly! For starters, of course they wanted to have people think
about American assassinations. By their very choice of subject matter,
they "told" people WHAT to think about. HOW they were supposed to
think about it is a bit more ambivalent, but if I were to go through
the script, I'm sure I could find examples of HOW one was supposed to
interpret what was being portrayed (and the telling details would
probably be more in what contexts and details were left out of the
situations being presented than in what was actually included) (By the
way, I was one of the few who actually saw the original run of the
show, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance).

The authors put their premises on stage and wanted the audience to draw
a certain conclusion (presumably about how uniquely violent America is -
- it's yet another play with the general theme of "the dark side of the
American dream" -- or "there's something rotten in the State of the
Union") but without overtly stating it. If taken absolutely literally,
I suppose you could say I misinterpreted Sondheim's remarks, and that
what Sondheim said was indeed true: they didn't want to "tell" the
audience anything -- but nevertheless they certainly were trying to
SHOW it.

I could more readily accept him saying that they didn't want to hit
people over the head with their "message," but there was indeed an
implied "message" in the show. It was obviously not a mindless piece of
entertainment for the "tired businessman." They wanted their audience
to think about the subject, and wanted them to think about it in a
certain way, even if they weren't going to "tell" them overtly.

Eagle

[DgSWEET]

>"'The piece should speak for itself,' Mr. Sondheim says. 'We don't want to
tell people how or what they should think about. We don't want to preach or
promulgate.'
>
>And then the composer, who has presented his audiences with so many
challenges over the years, gently issues another, 'What would be nice is to
tell them to take the journey with us," he says. 'It's a real roller-coaster
ride.'"

Yes, this is consistent with what I'm saying. Preaching is when you tell
people what to think, and usually people resent the hell out of it. Especially
in entertainment.

>I understand your argument: "If you put the premises onstage correctly,
>most of the audience is indeed going to arrive at the conclusions you
>intend" (although I'm not certain exactly what you mean
>by "correctly").

Well, it's a little like algebra. If I write 2x=54, you're gonna figure out
that x=27. Let's say I wanted you to think "27." Then I've set up the
circumstances at which you figure out "27" for yourself. Or let's say I say of
Andrew, "He tipped fifty cents on 40-dollar check." You're gonna draw a
conclusion about Andrew on the basis of that behavior, yes? My hunch is the
word that you're going to think is "stingy." That would be correct.

> And I generally agree that preachy speeches are ineffective (although in Ayn
Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged" -- second
only to the Bible in being cited as a book which has most changed people's
lives -- Rand goes on for 60 pages in a speech that very explicitly "tells" her
audience what she's trying to convey -- so there's always an exception to every
rule). But it strikes me as a bit less than candid to say of one's intentions,
"We don't want to tell
people how or what they should think about." Of course they do -- just
not overtly!

Yes, but that's the point of art! In my opinion. And of course they don't
want to announce in an interview what their intentions are. That's a great way
of setting yourself up to be smacked by the press. "Sondheim said that this is
meant to represent thus-and-such -- he wishes!" Also, if you announce you
thesis in press that the audience can read, it short-circuits their function in
the theatre. I try never to talk directly about theme when I'm interviewed.
(Besides, people don't flock to a show because it has a particular theme. If
you're gonna do p.r., do effective p.r.)

>>Re ASSASSINS: (By the way, I was one of the few who actually saw the
original run of the Show, so I'm not speaking out of ignorance).

So did I. Things to admire in it, but not my favorite show by a long shot. No
pun intended ...

> If taken absolutely literally, I suppose you could say I misinterpreted
Sondheim's remarks, and that what Sondheim said was indeed true: they didn't
want to "tell" the audience anything -- but nevertheless they certainly were
trying to SHOW it.

Well, yes. As I say, that's the point. Theatre isn't explicit -- like an
essay or editorial -- it's IMplicit. You don't involve an audience by doing
all the work for them.

>I could more readily accept him saying that they didn't want to hit people
over the head with their "message," but there was indeed an implied "message"
in the show. It was obviously not a mindless piece of
entertainment for the "tired businessman." They wanted their audience to think
about the subject, and wanted them to think about it in a certain way, even if
they weren't going to "tell" them overtly.

Working implicitly isn't just about not articulating "the message," it's about
even making sure that certain specific facts or details are conjured by the
audience rather than having them explained.

For instance, Mark Twain once wrote about a guy who cheated him on a business
deal. This man has since died. Twain says of him, "But I bear him no malice.
In fact, I'd send him a fan if I could." There's not theme in that joke. But
there is something that is left unstated for the audience to figure out --
where Twain imagines his dead enemy is spending his afterlife. If Twain had
used the word "Hell" he would have blown the joke.

[eagl...@my-deja.com]

In article <20001016160335...@ng-md1.aol.com>,

dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET) wrote:
> Working implicitly isn't just about not articulating "the message,"
it's about
> even making sure that certain specific facts or details are conjured
by the
> audience rather than having them explained.
>
> For instance, Mark Twain once wrote about a guy who cheated him on a
business
> deal. This man has since died. Twain says of him, "But I bear him
no malice.
> In fact, I'd send him a fan if I could." There's not theme in that
joke. But
> there is something that is left unstated for the audience to figure
out --
> where Twain imagines his dead enemy is spending his afterlife. If
Twain had
> used the word "Hell" he would have blown the joke.
>

Nice to be in agreement with you for once. However, I think in SOME
circumstances, if certain things aren't made explicit, it leaves itself
open to misinterpretation. In "Atlas Shrugged," for instance, the book
would not have the same impact if the 60 page explicit speech
articulating the theme wasn't included (though I think it could have
been edited down). Even despite this, a lot of people misinterpret
Rand and the book -- even I did when I first read it! I wrote a note
in the book cover as I read it, before I understood her whole
philosophy: "What would happen if no one initiated kindness?" I now
see the prejudice I brought to my initial understanding of her comment
that no one should initiate the use of force, but it took a lot of
reading to make this clear to me.

Eagle

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

[pfdocwilson]

> what Sondheim said was indeed true: they didn't want to "tell" the
> audience anything -- but nevertheless they certainly were trying to
> SHOW it.

Every playwriting instructor I know says this the very first day.
It is a fundamental truth in any art form.

Doc

[Rita Cadillac]

Niice post. Gor Art! Sorry my spell checker ain't wqorkin to good

[Karen Horn]

DgSWEET <dgs...@aol.com> wrote:
:
: Well, it's a little like algebra. If I write 2x=54, you're gonna figure out

: that x=27. Let's say I wanted you to think "27." Then I've set up the
:circumstances at which you figure out "27" for yourself. Or let's say I say of
: Andrew, "He tipped fifty cents on 40-dollar check." You're gonna draw a
: conclusion about Andrew on the basis of that behavior, yes? My hunch is the
: word that you're going to think is "stingy." That would be correct.

Not necessarily. Andrew could be some European who thinks that a service
charge has automatically been added to his bill---or there were SERIOUS
issues with the service itself. Sometimes the really fun/interesting
situations are set up when you think [by law of averages, i.e. "Andrew
is cheap"] it's because of reason X---but then you find out reason Z was
the real reason. Something turning out to be because it was not the
obvious is usually more gratifying.

Karen

[DgSWEET]

>Not necessarily. Andrew could be some European who thinks that a service
>charge has automatically been added to his bill---or there were SERIOUS

>issues with the service itself. , etc.

Karen, the point of the post wasn't the fictitious Andrew, the point was that
if you just give people data, they will draw their own conclusions, and that
will be more involving than if someone on the stage tells them the conclusions
the author wants them to ingest. If you don't like my example, fine, but the
theory actually does work. Most of the score of MY FAIR LADY is based on the
premises-and-conclusions model, in fact.

[eagl...@my-deja.com]

In article <20001018091501...@ng-md1.aol.com>,

dgs...@aol.com (DgSWEET) wrote:
> Most of the score of MY FAIR LADY is based on the
> premises-and-conclusions model, in fact.
>

Do explain! This sounds interesting. Really much more enjoyable than
arguing politics, however much I sometimes indulge in it myself.

Eagle

[Karen Horn]

DgSWEET <dgs...@aol.com> wrote:
:>Not necessarily. Andrew could be some European who thinks that a service

:>charge has automatically been added to his bill---or there were SERIOUS

:>issues with the service itself. , etc.

:
: Karen, the point of the post wasn't the fictitious Andrew, the point was that
: if you just give people data, they will draw their own conclusions, and that
: will be more involving than if someone on the stage tells them the conclusions
: the author wants them to ingest. If you don't like my example, fine, but the

: theory actually does work. Most of the score of MY FAIR LADY is based on the
: premises-and-conclusions model, in fact.
:

Oh, no dispute here-sorry if it came off that way. Just pointing out
that often times the fun comes when a reason/result is not the "obvious"
one.

Karen