a couple things
1/ luddite?
2/ story/gesture meaningness
1/ on the radio last night there was a report about Newfoundland on Radio Netherlands (that very occurance worth a note) - essentially about the collapse of the fisheries, the resulting death of tradition, and tourism that results in the performance of those traditions after death. and while that cycle is interesting enough, and close to home for me since it is a similiar pattern in Cape Breton / NS - what I thought about as I fell asleep was various interviews with people, who, while sad about the loss, nervous about tourism ("we have become people fishers") said (in paraphrase): change happens, and, like the death of a loved one, is sad, but moving on is needed. To hold out and try to pretend that the change didn't happen would be close to death itself.
the impact of this thought was that I wondered about my quasi-ludditism that is evidenced in continuing to work in the theatre, or live performance in general - especially as I am resistant to technology as a key element. I've said that theatre is retro-grade activity before, and have an unsettled relationship to the idea "of going back." Arguably much of my aesthetic, political and formal interests involve some kind of stopping or returning (small groups of people meeting in person with as little mediation as possible, a way of engaging with each other that seems to be passing.) Are these idea's born from a desire to stop movement, to halt or even reverse change? And is this a bad thing? I can criticize and more to the point attempt to side step the modernist notion of progress, but is doing so responsible?
I have been discussing with various folks the difference between art that reflects contemporary life ("Oh, that's so true [and often bad]") and art that might offer some proposals towards a different life ("Oh, what if that were true!?") - this formulation feels right - BUT is the proposal I have to offer some going-backwards towards a romantized past that never existed? Or a future in which the recent past never happened?
That I hate cell phones and genetrification (though am fond of the internet and my palm pilot), prefer film to video and Guns 'n Roses to the Darkness.
Is it a constant that some will bemoan the death of a former authenticity, while the kids move ahead with or without me, creating their own definitions of authenticity?
Nothing really formed yet, and it's not going to change the work yet, but some questions (damn that Dutch radio about Canada.)
2/ We've been talking about different gestures holding the same importance - getting undressed being done with the same weight as adjusting a chair - a space where everything is both equally unimportant and therefore important. Wondering in the past few days (with World Stage and CD and IS's showings) whether and how stories might function the same way - after Chad's showing people talked about how the one piece of text weighed much more than everything else. I think on one level this was a result of it being the only story/text - that to create that level ground where the audience moves with little friction between possible meanings, one needs to do at least 2 things (to get the teeter totter level, 2 children of equal weight are needed) - don't know that this is anything mind blowing but speaks of the mystical math that is necessary to make work (something is funny once, three and 5 times only etc)
ps: is music a cheap way out or an important road sign?
2/ story/gesture meaningness
1/ on the radio last night there was a report about Newfoundland on Radio Netherlands (that very occurance worth a note) - essentially about the collapse of the fisheries, the resulting death of tradition, and tourism that results in the performance of those traditions after death. and while that cycle is interesting enough, and close to home for me since it is a similiar pattern in Cape Breton / NS - what I thought about as I fell asleep was various interviews with people, who, while sad about the loss, nervous about tourism ("we have become people fishers") said (in paraphrase): change happens, and, like the death of a loved one, is sad, but moving on is needed. To hold out and try to pretend that the change didn't happen would be close to death itself.
the impact of this thought was that I wondered about my quasi-ludditism that is evidenced in continuing to work in the theatre, or live performance in general - especially as I am resistant to technology as a key element. I've said that theatre is retro-grade activity before, and have an unsettled relationship to the idea "of going back." Arguably much of my aesthetic, political and formal interests involve some kind of stopping or returning (small groups of people meeting in person with as little mediation as possible, a way of engaging with each other that seems to be passing.) Are these idea's born from a desire to stop movement, to halt or even reverse change? And is this a bad thing? I can criticize and more to the point attempt to side step the modernist notion of progress, but is doing so responsible?
I have been discussing with various folks the difference between art that reflects contemporary life ("Oh, that's so true [and often bad]") and art that might offer some proposals towards a different life ("Oh, what if that were true!?") - this formulation feels right - BUT is the proposal I have to offer some going-backwards towards a romantized past that never existed? Or a future in which the recent past never happened?
That I hate cell phones and genetrification (though am fond of the internet and my palm pilot), prefer film to video and Guns 'n Roses to the Darkness.
Is it a constant that some will bemoan the death of a former authenticity, while the kids move ahead with or without me, creating their own definitions of authenticity?
Nothing really formed yet, and it's not going to change the work yet, but some questions (damn that Dutch radio about Canada.)
2/ We've been talking about different gestures holding the same importance - getting undressed being done with the same weight as adjusting a chair - a space where everything is both equally unimportant and therefore important. Wondering in the past few days (with World Stage and CD and IS's showings) whether and how stories might function the same way - after Chad's showing people talked about how the one piece of text weighed much more than everything else. I think on one level this was a result of it being the only story/text - that to create that level ground where the audience moves with little friction between possible meanings, one needs to do at least 2 things (to get the teeter totter level, 2 children of equal weight are needed) - don't know that this is anything mind blowing but speaks of the mystical math that is necessary to make work (something is funny once, three and 5 times only etc)
ps: is music a cheap way out or an important road sign?
posted by Jacob Zimmer at 11:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home