Letters to the editor: January 2009

On “City Pages cuts theater coverage in half” and Quinton Skinner’s “Live Wire”

At the tail end of what has been a hard year all around for the vaunted Twin Cities alt-weekly, it’s been a particularly rough couple of weeks for arts & culture writers over at City Pages. First, the Assistant A-List Editor* and one of the two staff food writers were laid off; now, it looks like the publication’s well-respected theater critic, one of the few of the old-guard staffers to persevere through the upheavals of the last year, Quinton Skinner’s job is being reduced by half.

Read the whole response at the Walker Art Center blog.

—Susannah M. Schouweiler, editor of mnartists.org,

On Polly Carl’s “Script Work”

I think Polly Carl is absolutely dead-on with this article. (Full disclosure: I'm a playwright). The "strange moment of clarity" she describes regarding ethics came for me when discussing the writing life with a scientist friend. My friend told me that in science, Research Development is seen as the critical part of science---any lab that didn't do experiments which 90% of the time turned out to have no practical application would be laughed out of the business. We don't do R in the theatre--we do idiotic market testing.

Artists are usually in or out of their own times in different ways than the mainstream. That is why we are artists--we have a different perspective (the canary in the coalmine as Kurt Vonnegut used to say). Commercial considerations trumping artistic ones are a form of short-term cannibalism of exactly what makes art worthwhile. Most first world countries understand this, and have models that support art-making outside of the profit model. This leads to better work, better opportunities for artists to make it, and (crucially) better-educated and hungrier audiences for more than entertaining pap.

— Christine Evans, Briggs-Copeland Lecturer at Harvard University

MinnesotaPlaylist responds: They’re reading us at Harvard!

 

On our “Interview with Dominique Serrand”

Loved the Dominique Serrand interview. The discussion of the ingredients necessary for a viable artistic community in Minnesota and the U.S. is refreshing and long overdue. The economics of being an artist in the U.S. are little understood by the mainstream population -- in large part because we don't value the artists.

The concept of artists inextricably intertwined with our educational system is the only way to sustain our population's interest, support and participation in the arts.

— Gabe Angieri

On December’s Vom (our monthly rant or provocation against the conventional wisdom), “Have some respect, please”

Well stated. I especially liked, and agreed with your posit to artists. I too believe our audiences are due more respect. I too find that we need to believe in our product more.

However, our opinions diverge when it comes to Tony and Tina's Wedding or shows of its like. Yes, it is what it is (and if you have not done improv performance, it's not easy ) but, what's wrong with that? You put them down, and ask an audience to rise, ascend to the next, the true level of theatre. Float amongst the clouds of creativity, don't muddle in a puddle of mediocrity.

In what rank would you put Tony and Tina's vs. a show at a local community theatre? TRP? Gremlin? The Guthrie? Yes, there are levels of competence to consider; however, it is my belief that TNT's has just as much right to an audience as anyone. It is each company’s task to attract an audience.

I believe that the public that does not attend your desired theatre may go to a show like TNT's. If they like that, they may go to a touring Broadway show, or a show like Musical, the Musical during the Fringe. Perhaps they can be led into the stratosphere of theatre that you desire they aspire to.

Most people do not start out at the major leagues. Let's allow that any theatre experience is a good one. One that may lead to a deeper appreciation of the arts.

If an audience member never enters your kingdom of worthwhile theatre, that's ok.

— Adam King

Alan responds: I’m afraid you’re confusing me with someone else. I don’t believe I was putting down Tony and Tina’s Wedding by pointing out that it isn’t a particularly challenging piece of work. (Challenging for the audience. As a theater artist, I know very well how hard any performance of any kind is.) As I said, I’ve seen TNT and enjoyed it fine. I also thought I made it clear that, of course, the audience has the right to do whatever they want.

So of course, it's “OK” if they never enter whatever “kingdom of theater” they never enter. My point was that, rights aside, I think they’re really missing out. I think you can enjoy and appreciate both Tony and Tina’s Wedding and Harold Pinter’s The Caretaker but you (anonymous audience member) have to be willing to approach The Caretaker differently, and you have to be willing to do some more challenging brain work. The Caretaker can’t be done without a different kind of audience participation than is expected at TNT. “You” have to be seriously interested in a challenge. You have to be ready to think and question more.

And, in truth, I have to admit that I highly doubt Tony and Tina’s Wedding does lead anyone toward more complex theater. It’s like saying American Idol preps people to watch The Wire – or watching The Price is Right makes people want to watch The West Wing. While audiences can do anything they like (of course – I say it again), my point was to say – uncomfortable as it sounds since we’re generally so interested in being pleasing to our audience – that there is some work that they, the audience, needs to and, I believe, should actually want to do – sometimes – in order to appreciate other kinds of plays. I think they will be rewarded for that work. Tony and Tina’s Wedding doesn’t require that work. I don’t think people who perform in the show would suggest it does. It has other, different kinds of rewards.

By pointing that out, I am not making a value judgment, only a realistic distinction. ❦