Yes, Kate, thanks for moving us on. There really was no purpose to discussing the future of DDS and all that. I was being thin-skinned, and should have just called a halt to lunch meetings for a few weeks while everyone's schedule sorted itself out. None of us really was able to spare the time, even those of us who were there. Anyway, I feel very protective of DDS, and proud of what we do, and so I over-reacted to the suggestion that we had lost our purpose.

To everyone: sorry for the abusiveness. Kate had the right idea: back to the ideas. It seems to me that there are several things posted earlier that my tirade interrupted. Please: carry on.

Scott

Yeah. Thanks, Kate. You proved to be the adult of the group.

But, needing to make my own apologies--

I'm sorry to everyone (and esp. Scott) for being a butthead.

Jess

Brian wrote: In the past theatre was used to challenge contemporary views. Today, it seems that when people go to the theatre- they go for affirmation of their own views. They are paying a great deal of money for tickets, and don't want surprises.

When theatre becomes about affirmation (if it has) then it begins to lack relevance. How many people do you know that would give up their TV? How many would gladly sacrifice seeing a show?

I don't mean to quibble, because I think you are making a good point. But at the same time, I wonder. While you are correct that in the past, say, 125 years theatre has been used to challenge contemporary views, going back further finds that function a bit less prevalent. The Oresteia, for instance, is a celebration of Athenian wisdom. What view does Hamlet challenge?

Some art challenges, but one type of art that seems to have disappeared has been art that makes sense of the world, that reveals meaning in the seeming chaos of events, that puts our lives into a larger context and reminds us that we have a purpose, that we are part of a larger story. Brustein's image of the tattered priest turning his distorting mirror on the audience and the cosmos haunts me -- shouldn't art make things clearer and sharper, rather than more distorted?

Perhaps we shouldn't challenge reality until first we can define it clearly...

Scott

Peter Hall in AT, Sept 1999:

"Only in company has revolutionary theatre happened. I believe theatre has to be community-driven, and based on the pact between the actor and the audience."

I take this to mean that in times of crisis, we don't abandon our theatres to go bankrupt. We batten down the hatches and support the groups that are making theatrical strides. We lend support through financial means, through our work with these groups, by holding them to higher standards, by encouraging others to see the work, by seeing it ourselves, by writing about it, by discussing it, by demanding that our society make theatre (and all of the arts) a priority.

Jess

Wow! Did I hurt your feelings? Excuse me if I don't apologise. I don't take kindly to being called "arrogant", "ignorant" and "juvenile" and having assumptions made about me considering myself to be "just too smart to discuss anything with [my] fellow students". I don't think such behavior is appropriate. I shall try not to engage in such myself.

Brian, you have the metaphor backwards. When one is in the cave, seperated from the form, one looks at the reflections on the wall and makes assumptions about the true nature of theatre. I would suggest interacting, engaging with the theatre by turning around and stepping out into the fresh air (or into the dusty black box). Do this by writing about a play you've seen, say, in the past month. Go see plays - lots of them. Read plays, lots of them, and do literary crit for the work. Help develop the skills of a new playwright. Work on a new script with a new author. Write a play yourself. Put up the money to fund a piece of theatre you find to be integrous. Direct such a piece yourself. Write an article discussing your ideas and ideals and distribute it wider than to just the four of us that write in this e-space.

You want theatres "responsible for this stasis" to die out because they promote the status quo. But it is exactly such theatres that are doing fine. The theatres doing worthwhile work, ones of which I am certain you would be a proponent, are the ones going bankrupt.

Kenneth Tynan never demanded radical reform in the theatre of three of his friends and then sat back and waited for it to happen. Maybe you're not sitting back. I hope not.

Scott, I am hurt and confused by your interpretation of things I write on this blog. I know that my dissatisfaction with our lunch discussions is absolutely attributable to my own contribution (or lack thereof). I would never presume to to exempt myself from such responsibility. But why is it that, when we have met as a group in the past month, our conversations dwindle after a mere twenty minutes? Someone lets fly with an opening salvo, one or two people respond and then conversation stagnates. Do we need lesson plans? A focus article or pre-chosen topic each Monday? Maybe we should try discussing broader themes through the lens of a specific work? Your Frankenstein Project seems like a good candidate for such discussion. I would certainly have liked to use DDS as a resource for the Pinter plays. Or maybe it is not a good idea to use a work one of is personally involved with as a focus? At least this coming week we have this online discussion to, well, discuss.

I can't believe I'm even going to broach this next subject --

I miss two lunches and all of a sudden I've "abandoned the group"? I think killing myself to get tech done for Proof and catching a plane from Bloominton to Atlanta are permissable reasons to miss DDS -- ah, what the hell, I don't really need to justify this. Besides, the recent discussion on this blog has been one of the more engaging this semester.

So, let us all put our egos back in their cages and focus on some specific issues.

Anyone interested in discussing NCSC's Proof? What about Warren Wilson's Tempest? Can we do The Music Lesson after it runs this weekend? Let's compare these pieces to our theatrical ideals and see how they measure up. How about compiling a short reading list for the holidays that we could discuss when we reconvene in January? Let's discuss an appropriate milieu in which to explore Brian's ideas for radical reform. In fact let's flesh out what a couple of those ideas are, beyond simply trashing the current system. Would educational theatre be a good place to start? Where else? Is it even possible?

Jess

Jess wrote: "Part of being in the game means making critical thought and dialogue about these subjects a part of my daily life. I get a chance to explore this when I am talking one on one with Rob Bowen, or Charlie Flynn-McIver, or Scott, or Jennifer, or in this forum. Guess where I don't get that chance? That's right - at lunch on Mondays. I know that I have grown as an artist because of ideas explored in DDS. This blog is one place where those ideas manifest themselves - not at lunch, unfortunately. Maybe I'm a nerd, or too intense, or just plain can't have fun, but I can eat lunch anywhere. I LIKE being challenged intellectually at Urban Burrito. Honestly, I'm sick of their food - but I WANT that to be a time devoted to critical thought about the purpose of theatre and the arts in contemporary American society. Right now, it ain't."

Scott writes: Jess, you write as if you aren't an active part of the group at lunch. As if you desperately tried to introduce serious conversation, but everybody overrode you and decided to talk gossip. This is BS. The fact is that you contributed as much to the gossip session as anyone. You also write as if that a gossip session 1) never happened before in the history of DDS, and 2) has been a regular aspect of DDS conversation. That's not how I remember it. But even if that was the way it was, you're going to have to explain why your way of dealing with this was to simply abandon the group, rather than bring this change to everyone's attention.

Jess wrote: "DDS was started as an informal group - there was no induction ceremony that I can recall, we don't keep minutes (although we probably could stand to employ a sargeant-at-arms...). Why this sudden need to formally examine our intentions and roster? Is it so DDS can keep its mythic status in the future as a permanent resident of the UNC-Asheville drama department?"

This "sudden need" should be obvious: as much as I like talking to John, I'm getting a little tired of two-person lunches. DDS was started as a discussion group. If we're not going to have discussions, then the group doesn't exist. If you want to go back to one-on-one with profs (because apparently you are just too smart to discuss anything with your fellow students), then you should quit DDS and let people participate who are interested in discussion. And don't give me that "I'm too intense" BS. If you were intense, you would have stepped up and taken a leadership role when Brian left the group. Instead, you've just followed the crowd, and then have the nerve to bitch about it.

Am I pissed off? Yes, I am. You have dissed everybody in this group by your attitude, and especially me.

Scott

But the reflections are so pretty! That's the point, isn't it? That the radical reform Brian proposes is something that can only be given lip service - - which is much easier to dish out when you have distance from the subject? When you live in the cave? Never did I say that anyone should be denied the right to their opinion. Read my post again if you think I did. In the same vein, I find it incredibly easy to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy and Frank Solich's apparent inability to formulate a coherent gameplan. And I believe whole-heartedly that I have the right to voice my opinion about such bullshit. What kind of response do you think I'd get from those camps were my opinion brought to their attention? They would tell me that I am obviously no expert and that they hope my feelings won't be hurt when they don't go ahead and implement the sweeping changes I am calling for.

Hmmm. That's interesting. Equating myself with a a politician I loathe and a coach that makes me cringe every Saturday. Well, as they say, if the shoe fits....

Okay, okay. Refusing to entertain an idea, any idea, is stupid, and I would hope all of you know that it is not at all how I operate in my day-to-day life. I'm ashamed that I wrote such a thing.

Yes, theatre is in a transitional period. Yes, I can change theatre by working within the current framework. That's my goal, anyway. I can't sit on the sidelines. I'm not sitting on the sidelines.

Part of being in the game means making critical thought and dialogue about these subjects a part of my daily life. I get a chance to explore this when I am talking one on one with Rob Bowen, or Charlie Flynn-McIver, or Scott, or Jennifer, or in this forum. Guess where I don't get that chance? That's right - at lunch on Mondays. I know that I have grown as an artist because of ideas explored in DDS. This blog is one place where those ideas manifest themselves - not at lunch, unfortunately. Maybe I'm a nerd, or too intense, or just plain can't have fun, but I can eat lunch anywhere. I LIKE being challenged intellectually at Urban Burrito. Honestly, I'm sick of their food - but I WANT that to be a time devoted to critical thought about the purpose of theatre and the arts in contemporary American society. Right now, it ain't.

DDS was started as an informal group - there was no induction ceremony that I can recall, we don't keep minutes (although we probably could stand to employ a sargeant-at-arms...). Why this sudden need to formally examine our intentions and roster? Is it so DDS can keep its mythic status in the future as a permanent resident of the UNC-Asheville drama department? I also cringe at the idea of making our informal chat group (centered, admittedly, around some high-falootin' topics) the subject of such an investigation. As I recall hearing at lunch earlier this fall, "one of the rules of writing on the wall is that one does not comment on the wall...".

That being said, I'm still a pretty easy person to call out. I'll be at lunch on Monday.

Jess

Oh yeah. I was being comically serious. I DO blame the government for a lot of things. It's an easy thing to do.

Dear All,
John and I just spent another lunchtime chatting with each other. While there is no reason that this group must continue, it has been a good group over the past year and a half, and it deserves a more formal, intentional dismantling. I would like next Monday at lunch to be the time when we as a group determine the future for DDS. There are several options, it seems to me: 1) determine what has led to the lack of interest for the current members, and fix it; 2) allow those for whom DDS no longer serves a purpose to depart, and recreate another incarnation of DDS with a mixture of the remaining old guard and fresh faces; 3) say that DDS has served its purpose, and let it die.

In response to Jess: I am not certain what all this hostility is all about. There has never been any rule that DDSers have to agree. Clearly, you disagree with what Brian has written, which is a discussion in and of itself. But to say you "refuse to entertain thoughts such as those raised in your manifesto" does go against the very idea of DDS, which is that all things should be questioned and considered. There are assertions you make that simply don't stand up to scrutiny, such as that only those who are "personally engaged" in a system have the right to knock it. (If this were the case, then only those within Enron would have the right to knock its behavior.) I am less concerned with the opinion than with the underlying thought, which again goes against the very idea of DDS.

Jess, you have been an important part of DDS since its inception, and if it no longer serves a purpose for you that is fine. But I think you owe it to the group to deal with it directly and with more respect, because while you may no longer see DDS as important to you, some of your development as an artist is the result of the people that you bounced ideas off of in the past. If for no other reason, I think you should be thankful for that.

As far as the others -- Kate, Jennifer, Lachlan -- you may have very good reasons to have absented yourself from the group, but if it is from apathy, then I think you should have the grace to say so and formally move on.

So I call on everyone to converge for lunch Monday to discuss the future of DDS. To have it die of neglect is a pretty lousy way to go for something as dynamic as DDS has been.

Scott

Eh, Brian. You wouldn't want to join us for luch as of late anyway. More time and energy goes into discussing departmental gossip and who we personally like and dislike than into any intellectual discourse. I blame the government. In fact, I don't much feel like taking part in those lunch discussions anymore myself. Scott says I'm just tired and burned out, weary and unwilling to engage.

It's real easy to knock a system in which you are not personally engaged. It would be nice to say, "let theatre die" and wait for it to arise like a phoenix from the ashes -- but the truth is that I am a practitioner of that art form, and I refuse to entertain thoughts such as those raised in your manifesto. I don't want theatre to die. I like the fact that there are people willing to pay for their art. I know I can do good work in those dusty, tired old black boxes. I know that it is still an art form that genuinely moves people. I see it in my work and in the work of those people with whom I work in this town. It is worth it to me - I'm good at it.

Re: new people in DDS.

Fine. Great. You mean like Lochlan and Ryan? Extending an invitation in that direction seemed to be not at all effective. Who's next?

Jess

Well, Brian, it may be time for a regime change here in DDS. Or it may be that Jess and Kate have both been very busy of late. Hard to say. You brought a lot of intellectual energy to the group -- a real curiosity and love of ideas. Your graduation left a big hole.

We may need a dose of new blood -- or an entire transfusion, I don't know. I guess that will be up to the rest of the group. But I never thought I'd see the day when you could post a passionate manifesto, and I could post a fairly intriguing idea, and virtually no discussion would follow.

Scott

I had a nice lunch with John (nobody else showed Monday). John has often been the voice of diversity, it has seemed to me; when we were trying to define what theatre should be, John often would remark that it could be what we were saying AND what other theatres were doing -- why do we have to make a choice?

Once again, this arose, and we started to talk about a city's theatre scene as a type of ecosystem, which has intrigued me ever since. In an ecosystem, every animal has its place, and there is no need for one animal to resent another because of its position. If an animal becomes extinct, the whole system is thrown out of whack -- the tiger may not rely directly on the beetle, but the beetle contributes to the health of certain plants that are eaten by gazelles, and so the beetle is connected to the lion.

What if we looked at Asheville's theatre like an ecosystem? Flat Rock fulfills a certain need, while NC Stage fulfills another, and Area 45 fulfills another. Rather than competing with each other, what if each theatre recognized that it was made healthy by the existence and health of the others, and behaved accordingly? What if a consortium was formed by all the theatres who worked together to make sure that every theatre survived, and was able to contribute to a lively theatre scene? I am reminded here of the National Football League, which recognizes that the health of the game depends on parity among the teams, and so TV revenue is divided equally among the teams regardless of the size of their market. What if, for instance, the consortium sold season subscriptions that allowed attendance at a number of theatres -- say, a subscription allowed two tickets from the expensive professional theatres, two tickets from the mid-level theatres, and two tickes for the smaller theatres? What if the consortium applied for grants that would then be distributed throughout the ecosystem, rather than competing with each other for grant money? What if advertising and publicity were handled centrally? What if theatres were created according to a certain need in a theatre ecosystem, rather than competing manifestoes?

Such a philosophy might truly be a model of another economy other than the compete-or-die capitalist system. Such an approach might stress community over individualism. Talent might circulate more easily between theatres, and the theatre scene might become more coherent and satisfying.

Of course, we'd all have to let go of the tendency to see everyone who isn't "us" as being somehow less than worthy, and that would probably be the biggest hurdle.

Scott

Brian, I am still pondering your manifesto. You raise important, and very sticky, questions that are not to be taken lightly. It seems that some of your statements exaggerate Target's involvement a bit, according to my internet research. For instance, Target doesn't "run" the sweat shop camps, but they do buy from businesses that run such shops on Saipan -- along with a variety of other companies including the Gap, J.C. Penney, etc. On its website, Target has a link concerning standards for suppliers, which abhors sweatshop labor, and there are some reports that say it is difficult to get a sense of the true situation on Saipan because people who come to visit (as Target people did) only are allowed to take guided tours that are scheduled well in advance.

All of this is tinkering around the edges of the real moral question you raise, which is those concerning globalism. I feel a certain frustration, because I feel as if I am personally drowning in global corruption, and that unless I make a full-time job researching everything I buy, I am liable to support it somehow. OK, I don't shop at Target -- but is K-Mart any better, or Wal-Mart? Ingles? Just where am I supposed to get my deoderant? But I also wonder about the relevance of this to arts funding. If we don't take money from Target, say, how does that help the situation on Saipan beyond making us feel pure and righteous? At least, if we take their money, we are siphoning off part of their profit. And if we are doing theatre that makes people more empathetic, are we not working against the corruption we see? I think of all the libraries built by Carnegie, a villain if ever there was one, and all the people who lives were made better by contact with literature provided by the Carnegie libraries. On the other hand, are we serving as a false facade for a rotten organization, giving them social credibility that is not deserved?

Finally, the problem that I see is that, as is usually the case, we are very good at saying what it is we are against, but much weaker when it comes to what we are for. Which leaves us impotent, when all is said and done.

Scott

FYI -

PROOF by David Auburn opens this Thursday (11/13) at NC Stage Co. $10 preview is Wed the 12th. Pay-what-you-can is next Wed (19th) and they DO take reservations for that eprformance. Scott is moderating a talk back after the show this Friday, the 14th. The show is engaging and thought provoking--I think it is good theatre. Hope you all can make it...

Don't worry. I don't take these things personally. I do love discussing them. Let me respond in full when Iget a little time...

JEss

I don't know. I am starting to have doubts about doing theatre "for a living." Is it possible to question the status quo, make courageous decisions, experiment with alternatives if you rely on the theatre to put bread in your mouth? On the other hand, if you don't take money from corporations to support your theatre work, then you have to get a job to support yourself. Where? Corporate America, which is starting to feel like Abbott and Costello's third base.

I think liberals have long had a great distrust of money, a sense that it is the root of all evil, and a belief that purity means poverty. And I wonder about that, too.

I think Ben Cameron talks as if he is suggesting radical things, but he's actually playing around on the edges while leaving the lion's share untouched. Only in an institution as conservative as theatre (yes, theatre is conservative to the core) would it seem radical to suggest that subscribers be allowed to see the play free after the first time. That's about as radical as the idea of free checking. I think we need to be asking ourselves much harder questions about what purpose theatre serves in a world of movies, TV, DVDs, and the internet. And once we start answering those questions -- rigorously and honestly -- we need to have the courage to live those answers, even if it means we have to take a day job.

Figuring out arguments for getting more corporate sponsorship leaves the status quo intact, and I don't think the status quo should remain unchanged.

Scott

What are some of the small steps away from the system that we as individuals and small groups can take?

Isn't it morally responsible to make our necessary consuming choices according to some ethical standards applied to the purveyors of goods? Should I not choose Target over Wal-Mart? If I believe that my actions on a small scale impact at every level, then I must be very careful to take correct, informed action on as many decisions and issues as possible.

If corporate money is "blood money", where should I look for funding for my theatre? Is money from the NEA "blood money" as well? Their allocations are overseen by congressional committee. Should we trust the government and our duly elected (and, as often as not, corporately successful) representatives to not "call the tune" artistically, as it were? What about private donors who made their bundle in Corporate America? Is it dirty money simply because of the circumstances from whence it came, or is it dirty only when it is linked to an overt, controlling agenda?

I don't have any interest in playing around at theatre. It is not an evening and weekend hobby for me. I expect to make a living wage doing theatre. I intend to charge real money to see my shows. I invite the public to affirm the importance of art in their communities by paying for it just as they would schools, hospitals and good roads. I guess this makes me a dirty capitalist, but I'll take whatever funding I can get to keep doing theatre. I like to think I am strong-minded enough to keep a clear artistic agenda regardless of who is writing the check.

Jess

While I don't see Target as being quite as heinous as Brian, I would counter Jess with this:

Fact: there is such a thing as blood money.
Fact: he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Fact: Faustus sold his soul to the devil, and then did nothing more important with his newfound powers than box the ears of the Pope.

Do not trivialize the effects of money on one's behavior.

Scott

The next time I need to consume, I will absolutely choose Target over K-Mart or Wal-Mart.

Fact: I can't get away from capitalism.

Yeah, I'd like to read the letter, whether AT prints it or not.

I think the idea of Target contributing to the arts is very complex and should be encouraged. In fact, I think McDonald's should match the NEA's federal funding for the next fiscal year. If I get any of that money, I'll do a show exploring different facets of obesity and the American consumer. I will also in a public forum ecourage people to patronize their local Mickey D's BECAUSE they support the arts in general and my show in particular. A copy of that print article will be sent to McD. corporate headquarters. Let the power system know that we, the people, will consume our way to success in regards to our own agenda.

Jess

Um, inflamatory rhetoric, thy name is Brian.

Well, then, dish it, buddy! What did he say that inflamed you? What were your categorical responses?

How does Ben Cameron propose that we save American theatre?

How was NCTC?