After my husband's show Friday night, a group of us went out to eat/drink. We got into a friendly but heated debate about art. It started out with a discussion of when nudity is appropriate on stage (with one person arguing that it is never inappropriate if the director thinks it should be there).
This morphed into a discussion of which one of the main points being made was one I've heard from every person I've ever met with a degree in theater arts. Indeed, they use almost the exact same words.
The debate became this: How concerned should the playwright and director be with their audiences?
One side argues that an artist compromises his or her work by thinking about what the audience wants. They pander to taste, culture, and trends if they write or direct based on what is acceptable to the audience. They should be telling a story and not caring the least what the masses might think.
The other side argues that art, especially in the theater, is about making connections between people. While an "artist" wouldn't pump out pulp simply for the cash (that's what we craftspeople do), he or she does need to consider the best way to communicate. They have to decide whether particular elements are going to be distracting to their audience or whether those elements will evoke the response they are seeking from the story.
So, before I go further with either argument (ya'll can probably easily guess on which side I weigh), I want to open it up. What do you think?
__________________ Bridgette "There are seven things that will destroy us: Wealth without work; pleasure without conscience; knowledge without character; religion without sacrifice; politics without principle; science without humanity; business without ethics." --Mahatma Gandhi |