Advice from a Communist

Artsy Schmartsy is making me a liar with his great coverage of the Skylight disaster. Thanks Jonathan! Also, Kurt Hartwig's making my dreams come true with more and more coverage on his blog.

Check out their recent posts for details, then come back here for my perspective:

I urge everyone who is upset about this to look beyond this individual instance and observe the broader institutional transition that Skylight's actions are merely a symptom of.

There is a major shift in how theatre is produced underway today. Depending on how you look at it* it's been underway for decades, or it's just starting now. Either way, the dominant model of theatre production (non-profit corporations / regional repertory theatre system) is on it's way out.**

So let's look at what's going on here, in the abstract.

First, we have a class of big non-profit theatre who function under the obsolete model. This class needs A. new life and energy. B. a navagible route to gradually acheive radical innovations without disrupting their institutions, interrupting their services, or sacrificing their employee's livelyhood.

Second, we have a class of upstart theatre companies functioning under new models who, like all new models, are rough, and need time to develop, work out the kinks and perfect the formula.

Way i see it, things can go down one of two ways:

1. The big companies can batten down the hatches, dig into their bunker boardrooms, make draconian cuts and hope they'll weather the storm. They won't. Cuz this storm (and the upstarts) will reshape the entire landscape. There will never be a good time to come out of the bunker boardrooms, and the institutions will die there.

2. The big companies can reach out to the upstarts, bring them to the table, give them the support, resources, networks they need to experiment and develop their model. In return, they'll gain infusions of new talent and audience and have a chance to chart their own route of a more gradual carful adaptation along the trails the upstarts blaze.

Now, as a communist, I'd call option 2 "recouperation" and "appropriation of small innovators by established institutions" and / or say that the small innovators have "sold out". I'd prefer to struggle through the figuring out new models on my own and dance on the grave that the establishment's bunkers have become.

But, as a pragmatist i can't help but notice that option 2 sure seems a lot more pleasant, and more likely to work, at least sometime in my lifetime.

Fortunately for the rep, skylight and the companies at the BTC, I'm probably the only communist in the theatre scene, and even i can be pragmatic at times. (and i'm going to be spending much less time in milwaukee starting this fall). Unfortunately for the big companies, they seem mostly ignorant or uninterested in option 2. Which means the communist in me stands to win some support from the other small companies, right? Lets band together, get disciplined and smash the motherfucking establishment! Right? uh... oh. okay, i guess we're not quite at that point yet. Hurns.

*Tangent 1: My understanding of the history of this transition: The broad arch of it started decades ago, by the 60's radical practices had grown enough to challenge the establishment, but where then appropriated, absorbed, and relegated to the margins, where they exist today. But now the acute rapid part of this transition begins. Now the establishment is collapsing under it's own weight, if (when) radical practices emerge as powerful as they did in the 60's replacing these already crippled institutions will be simple. This history applies to all sectors of the economy, not just the theatre arts. It's called reasoned optimism people, catch it!

**Tangent 2: as to Kurt's disagreement that the non-profit model is increasingly obsolete, here's some interesting stuff to look at: theatre tribes, Mike Daisey. Neither go as far as i do, but you can find more of my thoughts by perusing my blog archive.

Press in Milwaukee Continued

I don't really know if you can call it "press" anymore since all the good shit is online. It blows my mind how mainstream newspaper art departments respond to their impending obsolescence by reducing their actual ink and paper coverage to only the big stuff, stuff which already advertises itself ubiquitously. I understand it from the perspective of the Big Stuff, or of the newspaper, but in the long term, it makes reading the paper redundant and superfluous. Whatever. Newspapers' stupidity in the face of adversity isn't my concern, i'm concerned about press coverage for the performing arts in milwaukee.

And today i'm writing from my bottomless sea of optimism. If you don't know me well, you'll be surprised to know i have one of those. Anyway, everyone has railed against Damien Jaques, sent in letters to the editor, and he's about to be canned, right? No? Okay, wrong. The journal is an obsolete monolith that will not respond to any number of reader complaints (and most people i asked to write letters are probably too defeated, complacent or busy to actually do it). What now? Keep shouting? Despair? Nope, replace the whole fucking Journal, which aint' hard cuz it's mostly done already.

There are awesome independent alternative media sources here in Milwaukee that actually do cover small scale performing arts and respond to the community. I should've pointed out how these mavericks will have the monolith torn down shortly. Artists! Use these sites to promote your stuff! Audience! Find out what's really going on in this town!

FIRST! Third Coast Digest. http://thirdcoastdigest.com Formerly Vital Source. They were the only media to respond to our first show, published some of our best (as in critical, well written and responsive) reviews, and have always been dilligent listers of all kinds of amazing events. They even let Tracy and I write reviews for a while (until some thin-skinned whiney elements of the Milwaukee theatre community complained).

SECOND! MARN'S new site. http://artinmilwaukee.com The Milwaukee Artist Resource Network has fought for independent artists of all types longer and harder than anyone else i know of. Their focus is on visual art, but their new site seems ready to give performing arts more attention. Looks like a great tool for not only promotion, but also networking. GET SIGNED UP!

THIRD! Local Arts Bloggers.
1. Russ Bickerstaff at the Shepherd covers everything happening in performance art like nobody else. Unfortunately, the most interesting stuff rarely gets into the print edition, and the Shep's website is poorly designed, unwieldy, and barely navigable, so i haven't been following Russ as closely as i used to.
2. Mary Dally-Muenzmaier at http://www.crickettoes.com/ is currently the most active multi-disciplinary blogger i know of, lots of good stuff.
3. Johnathan West at http://www.artsyschmartsy.com/ used to rival Russ for performing arts coverage, and Cricky for analysis and commentary, until he got a square job as ED of a square theatre company (oh, how the mighty have fallen!)
4. Mary Louise at Art City doesn't cover the performing arts, cuz then she'd be doing Damien's job (hey, at least someone would be) but she's excellent for anything else going on in the community. Follow her!
5. Just discovered recently that Kurt Hartwig has a blog. It looks like it was created for chronicling his time in Prague, but he appears to be back, and writing. If this is the case, get excited, Kurt is one of the smartest theatre people i've ever met.

FOURTH! Snap Milwaukee. http://www.snapmilwaukee.com/ This site has potential. Some really good people are involved. But be warned: it's also partially run by the Green Gallery folks. Green Gallery are clearly intelligent and active, but are also ambiguously ironic elitist shithead hipsters. (Or maybe they're just socially awkward and disorganized, you can't really tell, that's the power of ambiguous irony. Either way, i personally cannot fucking stand their whole shebang). They also don't have a performing arts editor, any film articles, and their shit loads funny, in short, the jury is still out on this one.

Milwaukee Cultural Alliance

I think the Milwaukee Cultural Alliance is a prime example of why Milwaukee will fail to become a genuine "Art City".

Jonathan West's discussion of this topic got me interested. To summarize: it seems that donors are giving money to the cultural alliance, who are doing nothing with it ("The Cultural Alliance folks talked about how in their initial impact as an organization could be characterized as inert.") Then the donors aren't giving to other more active artist-led groups like MARN, leading to Mike Brenner's great frustration and eventual "retirement".

This creates an environment of inaccessibility for new artists and organizations. New groups or individuals are unlikely to connect with a viable support structure when The Alliance has a monopoly on what is considered "legitimate professional art". If the Cultural Alliance groups were making art, this wouldn't be such a problem, but what they produce is generally more of a bourgeois status symbol than a meaningful artistic expression, a mirror for our society, or a currently relevant cultural object or experience.

That these groups are the only ones getting funding leads me (and others) to believe that the donor base in Milwaukee do not actually support or beleive in art, they only want to look like they do. As a result, the big organizations live in a very inefficient closed loop, where donors give them the money needed to maintain the appearance of legitimacy, they waste most of the money on administration and fancy new buildings and occasionally squirt out incredibly safe inoffensive art. It's like a feedback loop for crap, and the press dutifully plays their part.

When a city has this sort of self-perpetuating deadly arrangement sitting on top of its art scene, that city's audience, talent, and entire art community are negatively impacted. This kind of feedback loop for crap reinforces the anti-art mentality in audiences, who then reject all art or any cultural event because they associate it with the snobbishness that accompanies bourgeois status symbols. It stunts the growth of new art organizations who are unable to access support from philanthopists because they've already given to do-nothings. It also encourages artists to leave Milwaukee in droves, and those who stay, stay with very limited expectations, and with a tendency to spend more time drinking than art-making. Which drives me crazy.

I need to point out that I'm not whining here. I know that the responsibility for fixing this problem is mine, Mike's and everyone else's in the art community. We need to do a better job of inspiring people to look through the smoky alchoholic haze of the bars, past the Cultural Alliance's deadly offerings, and focus on the talented artists who are producing worthwhile challenging work. I'm not asking the Cultural Alliance to do better, or even for the bourgeois donors to get real. I'm encouraging the people who are real, who are genuinely interested in supporting art to not let their donations be lumped in with all the frauds and fakers who support the Cultural Alliance, UPAF and similar groups.

Maybe the best way i can do that is to get out of the way and leave the job up to others who are more charasmatic, positive, friendly, tolerant and otherwise just plain more attractive than Mike and I. People like Peggi Taylor, MIGA, or Cedar Block. If Milwaukee is going to become an Art City it will be through the efforts of those kinds of groups, not the Cultural Alliance.

But, i happen to think that every movement needs an uncompromising asshole to demand more and tell it like it is, regardless of toes stepped on, or bridges burned. I seem to fit this role naturally because when i look at things like the Cultural Alliance, i get really angry, and i'm no good at hiding it.

But more important than my anger, or my sanity (at least to anyone but me) is the future economic health of the City of Milwaukee. Which brings me to the subject i really want to talk about: The Cultural Alliance's report on Milwaukee's cultural assets. This report doesn't say anything new or unexpected, but there are some indications here of just how far the Cultural Alliance's heads are up their asses.

Somebody somewhere convinced Milwaukeans that we should want to be an Art City. This should be a good thing. Unfortunately when the task of actually becoming an art city is trusted to organizations that run like The Cultural Alliance (or UPAF, or MAM, or Visit Milwaukee, or The Journal Sentinal) the project is doomed to be a boondoggle.

The Cultural Alliance's report is an excellent example of this. It discusses the importance of the creative sector to economic growth, but it completely misunderstands what it's talking about. The leading voice for "creative class cities" is Richard Florida. If Milwaukee genuinely wants to be an Art City, and genuinely wants to attract the economic benefits of a thriving art scene, we need to look closer at what Florida has to say.

The creative class can be thought of in two different ways. A broadly defined creative sector and a "super radical core" of the creative class. The broadly defined creative sector includes, to quote the Cultural Alliance's source "* The core creative industries include R&D, publishing, software, TV/radio, design, music, film, toys/games, advertising, arts, museums, architecture, crafts, video games, fashion. Source: John Howkins, The Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas, 2001." These people are highly valued, have lucrative jobs, and create much economic growth. The super radical core, is a much more limited group of more purely creative people, that is: artists. Artists are starving, scraping by, working day jobs, living under the radar and not making money from their art. As such, they do not directly create economic growth.

The goal according to Florida is to attract the broadly defined creative sector to your city. This is where the super radical core comes in, the best means of attracting innovation and growth-causing creatives is to encourage the super radical core to cultivate a "street level culture". To put it simply, punk rock bands and starving artists don't make economic growth, but they do attract good software designers who do make economic growth.

The most important cultural assets to look at for Milwaukee's art city growth are assets creating "street level culture" and this is where the Cultural Alliance drops the ball. When their report says "In depth surveys... including the largest and best known... as well as medium- and small-sized nonprofits" they are totally out of touch with the meaning of the word "small". I know Milwaukee theatre better than other cultural areas, and the smallest theatre companies on the list of those surveyed by the Cultural Alliance are Chamber and the now defunct Milwaukee Shakespeare. From my perspective, those are two of the biggest theatre companies in this city. If you're standing on the "street level" The Rep and Skylight are giants. Chamber, Mke Shakes and other UPAF members are "big" companies. Groups like The Boulevard, Off the Wall, and Windfall are "medium sized", and folks like the Alchemist, Pink Banana, Insurgent Theatre, and Dead Man's Carnival are "small". The Cultural Alliance is unable to recognize the value of even medium sized companies, let alone the small ones, and it's the medium and small companies who produce the most street level culture, who are most likely to attract anyone other than retiree's to Milwaukee.

Now, i personally have a problem with Florida's ideas, he's encouraging cities and communities to use starving artists and punk rockers as bait for creative sell-outs who are more willing to be exploited by corporations. But that's a tangent. The more important point is: The Cultural Alliance, whose job it is to "strengthen, advance and represent the arts and culture sector as an essential asset for growing a vibrant, attractive region" is either unwilling to challenge Milwaukee's obsolete establishment or else they aren't even aware of how the creative class relates to economic growth. They focus all their attention on UPAF members and big organizations, as though these are the only existing relevant cultural assets, when, in reality from the creative class perspective, they are the least relevant.

CRAFTIVISM!

Whenever I talk about the revolutionary potential of art as a mode of production, I start by talking about live performance. I talk about how music and theatre have transformative potential. How these artists can come to dominate the growing arts and entertainment sector of the economy, and then transfer the efficiencies and different value systems to the material rather than experiential economies, in the same fashion that capitalism started in the material goods and eventually transferred to the agricultural economy.

People doubt the possibility of such a transfer. They say, okay, if musicians and theatre artists take over those industries (and very few will grant me that much) then who is gonna make my clothes and my food? Well, food is a whole nother thing. I can talk your ear off about co-ops, urban farming, buying local and organic trends, etc etc etc. Clothes? That’s when I bring up Faythe Levine.

Faythe has observed and is documenting the growing craft movement in America. Her book and forthcoming movie, Handmade Nation explore this subject and many artists and crafters participating in this movement, often with overt political intentions. I have yet to read the book, but I’ve gone to her exhibits, pecha-kucha presentation, preview screenings and last night a lecture on the subject. It’s really exciting stuff, and one of the increasingly rare things that makes me happy to be living in milwaukee.

Faythe’s lecture and slideshow presented much of the same material I’ve already seen, but to an older and more mainstream (by the looks of em) audience. The bitter curmudgeon in me initially observed the fact that Faythe’s gallery openings are often crowded with pabst drinking hipsters, but when she’s actually giving a lecture about her art and the community, without beer, it’s sparsely attended. But, then, most people who attend her gallery openings assumably already know everything she talked about at the lecture and had no reason to attend. All is not lost. I'd really like to see the DIY arts and crafts community get together for a serious group discussion at some point. Maybe that's just cuz i despise mingling.

Anyway, afterwards, Peter asked Faythe if she thinks the craft movement can challenge, compete with or replace the mass production status quo. She said no, it’d be great if it did, but that’s not realistic. Peter himself is also skeptical, as is anyone I talk to regardless of where they’re coming from. I see it as my job to figger out how this unrealistic thing might happen, and then encourage people like Faythe to be more optimistic. Toward that end I need to outline a simple argument for the process by which this revolution may occur. I have rough drafts in my head, and the conversation after Faythe’s lecture exposed a seeming contradiction.

Here’s a very simple outline of the general argument:

Capitalists make commodities better than artists do.
Artists make art better than capitalists do.
Art is becoming more valuable than commodities.

Therefore:
Artists can beat capitalists in open competition.

That gets us half-way to revolution. All we’d need is open competition. Which is a political cause, that artists will have to tackle once they become more numerous, more unified and more class-conscious (as in conscious of ‘artist’ as a class).

But first, the problems with those initial premises, cuz if they don’t hold true, then my argument is shit:

First, Peter has a problem with collectibles. In the noise scene there are some artists who create limited numbered runs of tapes and sell them on ebay, they end up going for $50 or $100. Peter doesn’t like this because the people buying these tapes don’t value them as music, but as extremely limited-edition music. What they’re purchasing is artificial scarcity and the social status that goes with that. They might as well be purchasing diamonds, or Picasso paintings at an auction. Peter avoids this problem by using recorded music as 1. promotion and 2. cheap souvenirs. So he’s putting the music he records on the internet for free, and selling it at shows for cheap. It’s supplementary to the live performances.

He asked Faythe and Cortney Hiemerel (co-author of Handmade Nation) about this, because the craft movement seems even more vulnerable to this collector problem than the music scene. Every hand-made thing is a limited edition, often a one-of-a-kind. Cortney’s response was that she didn’t think craft was more vulnerable to the problem, because craft itself is more accessible than music. Anyone can learn to crochet in an afternoon, music involves talent and nuanced training. She brought up examples of crafters exchanging patterns, kits, and other information, either for free online, or for sale at low profit margins.

This is excellent. The exchange of information and viral spreading of not commodities, but the knowledge necessary to create things yourself has revolutionary potential. But, it creates a problem with my argument above, which isn’t Cortney, Faythe’s or Peter’s problem, because they don’t subscribe to the possibility of this revolution anyway. But, here, specifically is the problem...

First, if I phrase Peter’s problem with collectability in economic terms, and abstract it to the system wide level I get something like the following. If art escapes commodification by virtue of scarcity and collectability, then it falls into the trap of patronage, a mode of production that pre-dated and was replaced by capitalism. Premise 3 (art is becoming more valuable than commodity) is jeopardized because art is becoming something less valuable than commodity (once you get to the aggregate).

But, art can escape collectability AND commodification if there’s a large enough number of people and each of them produces by hand, a small number of things. This situation can be brought about by Cortney’s solution: creating greater access through information sharing. This solution is based on the idea of crafting being simple and easy to learn. The problem now is, and this might be a wrong assumption, but, if a crafter learns how to make a scarf in an afternoon, it’s hard to imagine that scarf being higher quality (in terms of durability, sophistication of design, or lack of flaws) than a scarf mass produced by a corporation. Premise 2 (artists make art best) is jeopardized.

But, on further discussion, back home, Peter, Kate and I concluded that this could be a transitional period. That following Cortney’s examples to the end result, in the aggregate, you’ll find more and more people making scarves. The more people we have trying to make scarves, the more likely we’ll find a few that are really good at it, the more likely they’ll find valuable innovations, and even if most crafter-made scarves are shoddy, or plain, the few made by the most talented, will be better than any factory-made scarf. These scarves will then likely be valued as collectables. Collectibility is inescapable.

But that’s only for right now. In the future, as more and more of the things we own are handmade and therefore can qualify as “collectables” scarcity itself will no longer have importance. If everyone I know has one-of-a-kind potholders, then my one-of-a-kind potholders are valuable as potholders, not as one-of-a-kind potholders.

Another way to look at it is to admit that all values are socially ascribed values. That even corporate potholders aren’t really valued as potholders (cuz if they were everyone would just use thick plain heat resistant rags) they are valued as an attractive decorative thing in your kitchen that also helps get hot shit out of the oven. And so, when we talk about the value of art over the value of commodities, it’s a matter of this sort of social or highly subjective value, not practical use-value. Under this framework a distinction should be made here, between collector value and ethical value. For collectors, my hand-made potholder is more valuable than a store bought commodity potholder because it’s rare. This sort of value system tends toward patronage as an economic system, ie: feudalism. For ethical consumers, my hand-made potholder is more valuable than a store bought commodity potholder because, in buying it, I supported someone doing something they love, rather than someone reaping a profit on the sweat of exploited laborers. This sort of value system is what has revolutionary potential.

Art being valued based on love for the artists, is different than art being valued based on its scarcity, AND a different thing than commodities being valued based on identicalness, sexiness, and commodity fetishism. So, under this framework, what I am proposing - to reference Che’s famous quote – is an economy based on love.

How wonderful. Now that both my inner curmudgeon and my inner hippie have come out, let’s get to reality. This is scary stuff, because to some degree the viability of the revolutionary economic system depends upon rightly understanding and promoting the correct consumer intention, as well as the correct producer intention. When looking at consumer intentions, there’s a lot of overlap and ambiguity. So artists, even overtly political DIY artists are currently walking a very fine line between collectorism and commodification, sometimes dipping into and profiting from one or the other. If we can keep on the right general path, and promote consumption based on supporting artists (or farmers, or whatever producer) rather than fetishizing scarcity, we may be able to swamp the later with so many different one-of-a-kind potholders that no rare potholder will have significance as a collectable. Patronage will have been dodged and capitalism overcome.

Impressions from Tour Part One: Appropriation!

This is the first in a series of posts, in which i recap recent experiences and put them into a context from which relevant conclusions can be drawn. The main purpose here is to create a record of these events and my reactions to them for my own future reference. This is not the whole story of our tour, many good times good people and simple yet inspiring events or banal frustrations aren't mentioned.

To summarize: After performing with some great noise acts in Boston, we went out to a party and then a bar, and managed to have some very interesting conversations about the play, post-modern philosophy, political aesthetics, and what-not with Karl Heinz (not Karlheinz Stockhausen, khznoise) and Mike from Sharpwaist before people got too drunk. At the Lemp Arts Center in St Louis, Kate and I got into a great argument with Mark Sarich (who runs the place), and Max Woods (Peter's little brother) about everything from creative economies to social determinism. Peter had been waiting all tour for this showdown, and it met his expectations.

This group of events has given me a better handle on what is required to realize and empower the DIY artist class against capitalism. This is largely a reaction to Adorno and Horkheimer's assertion that the revolutionary opportunity has passed. I don't think it has. I think a combination of DIY production methods and ethos, "corrosive unacceptability" and content-driven, intellectually stimulating work can come together to create a movement which cannot be co-opted by the capitalists.

Lets start with Karl Heinz . Karl is a very precise and exacting musician. He's rumored to have been working for over a year on a single piece of music. He's known on "the noise board" for vitrolic comments and devastatingly honest criticism. He had a number of very specific questions and comments about the play, but soon our conversation spread to the subject of noise. I mentioned Theodore Adorno's "corrosive unacceptability" idea. That some forms or experiments in the arts could be too harsh and dissonant to be assimilated into the bourgeois entertainment machine.


If you're familiar with Adorno and this idea, skip this paragraph. For the unininitiated: Adorno is among the most pessimistic of the anti-capitalists. He and his associates claimed that "advanced capitalism had managed to contain or liquidate the forces that would bring about its collapse and that the revolutionary moment, when it would have been possible to transform it into socialism, had passed" (Wikipedia). He believed this containment was achieved through the culture industry, that bourgeois society re-institutes itself through the forms and formulas of art, especially narrative structures, catharsis, etc. He was a musician and inspite all this pessimism he did hold out that certain music: "only through its "corrosive unacceptability" to the commercially-defined sensibilities of the middle class could new art hope to challenge dominant cultural assumptions." (wikipedia). This earned him a reference in Paint the Town.


Karl Heinz and the other musicians that we played with (indeed Peter J Woods, who we traveled with) are noise musicians. Noise has got "corrosive unacceptability" in spades but, when I brought up the possibility that noise would remain artist-owned and not be co-opted by corporate capitalism, Karl asserted that it was already happening. He's not alone in this assertion. Peter has also been known to complain about PBR swilling douchebags showing up at his noise shows. This empty hipsterism is the first stage of mainstream assimilation of an art form. Also, lets face it, many noise musicians are tapping young white male angst more directly than metal, punk and hardcore ever could. In doing so they're also tapping a huge marketing demographic, the one Hollywood lusts after with every lame comic book adaptation film they churn out. Noise might not have much life left.

But, not if we can do anything about it, and we can. First, now more than ever, independent musicians have access to the equipment and networking necessary to produce and distribute their art without the industry. Secondly, it is possible to make art unappropriateable. Karl Heinz believes that capitalism always appropriates only the surface of an art movement, not the content. I think this nexus of corrosive unacceptability, DIY empowerment, and content driven work might allow artist/revolutionaries to thrive outside of capitalism. If not today, then in the future, as these trends continue.

Unfortunately, these trends might not be continuing. Fast forward to St Louis. Mark Sarich, who has run the Lemp Arts center for 8 years, and has been an active member of the DIY punk community and experimental music academia for i don't know how long, has a much more pessimistic perspective. Over the course of my approximately 10 years of involvement with underground art, i've witnessed an expansion. I've got the impression that we're more empowered and radical today than we were when i got started. Mark, on the other hand sees us as steadily worse off.

Mark's pessimistic conclusions are supported by other older members of the theatre and arts communities i know. John Manno and John Schneider have both also described a steady decline in ambition, quality, and popularity of avant-garde or experimental art. They seem paralyzed and alienated from society, avoiding art that they automatically assume will either piss them off or dissappoint and depress them. Now, it could be that these different perspectives have more to do with our individual attitudes and lives than objective reality. I see potential and reason for optimism because i'm still young (though 30 is kinda old for naivete) and haven't yet been defeated. They despair because they're getting older, are having a harder time connecting with new talent, and are nostalgic about the past.

But, i don't think that's entirely the case. Theatre X (John Schneider's company) used to travel the country and the globe. They had much more support locally and had a good sized group of people who were able to commit fully to the company in ways Insurgent has not been able to recruit or inspire. A large part of their success (or at least sustanance) came from university gigs, and grants. These options are not available today.

The optimist in me wants to believe that things like this swing on a pendulum. That yes, in the 80s we saw a great closing of the art world on all levels. The NEA and regional theatre movement saw their budgets slashed, the grassroots hippie culture burned out and experimentation ran up against a brick wall. But the pendulum swings back. The experimentation of the 60's and 70's were a rebirth out of the mediocrity of the 50s. The 40's and 50's were a clamping down on the dada-ists and flappers of the teens and twenties. By this logic, we're in for a strong resurgence of art and experimentation.

This resurgence might be even more powerful because it is not dependent on governement money, grants, or the university system. We're building a complete network and infrastructure that is artist controlled on every level. If we succeed, our opponents won't have a rug to pull out from under us the way Reganite's gutted the NEA during the culture wars of the 80s.

But, for us to acheive this more thorough and independent success, we need to be better, work harder, and stop short-changing ourselves. The capitalists and traditionalists are getting better and better at cutting off new movements before they can even start, and many within our communities are making choices that make us vulnerable.

There are three problems: First, we're too eager to participate in the capitalist entertainment machine. Second, we sell ourselves short, trying to make our products less radical and more palatable. Third, we like irony too much.

The first two problems are simple. We go see shit like The Dark Knight and forgive it's commercialism and excess and exaggerate it's few virtues. Then we hold ourselves back from fully realizing our work for fear that it'll be too dense or inaccessible to "the commoners" we want to attract to the audience.

The local run of Paint the Town has provided good examples of this. Paint the Town is an unapologetically intellectual play. It is dense with philosopher and artist names and concepts, characters name drop everything from "the Frankfurt school" to Genet to Hegelian "determinations of the will" and Nietzsche's "slave morality." After Russ Bickerstaff (local reviewer) saw the show, he gave me a warning: "I get some of those references, but most of your audience isn't going to know them at all" and he went on to write a review that, rather than judging the piece on it's own terms, reads like an apology to the audience, who Russ assumes will be entirely confused.

And, yes, as always, there were a number of people who didn't get it, radical theatre is not for everyone, and it never will be, but Russ and others seemed to think that the play had no hope of finding an audience who could appreciate this kind of thing. Once we hit the road and got some audiences who came to the shows cold (they were there to see the bands, not the play) these naysayers were proven wrong. The references got laughs, and compliments. "It's not often i get to hear so many Marx jokes" said one audience member in Baltimore (who was originally from Milwaukee). Also, many people who didn't understand the references at all came to tell us how totally inspired they were, by the play. They bought copies of the script and other merch with great enthusiasm. It seems the people who were able to recognize that the names were shorthand, and view them as character development (these characters are people who argue with each other on that level) rather than as content, were able to focus on and follow the over-all themes of the play much better than those who got caught up on the details and frustrated when something went over their heads.

This is who i want to make art for. These people appreciate the same things in art that i do. When i go to a show that's over my head, i love puzzling it out or trying to catch up. I've sat on the edge of my seat taking notes during The Death of Empedocles. Notes which then made it into the final scenes of Paint the Town. I love going back and seeing things that puzzled or enthralled me again and again. I want more of this art produced. I want more of these audiences discovered and cultivated, so more make the jump from viewer to producer and I get to see more of it happen. One way to do that is to produce this kind of art myself and introduce it to the widest audience possible.

Another great example from this summer: i had the privilege of producing John Manno's This is Entitled: This is Entitled. This non-narrative play takes on and destroys all theatrical structures and systems of thought, and even the very idea of systems of thought at a break neck pace, and with hilarious results. It's the most "inaccessible" play ever. Russ was relieved that he wouldn't have to review it because he assumed he was the only person in the audience who got it's references to quantum physics. During one of the performances of this piece, i sat near the back of the audience, and a few rows in front of me were two boys, who came to see the show together, they were friends of one of the actors in another piece. One of them leaned back in his chair a scowling with confusion and boredom. The other, sat forward, hands on his knees and a huge grin plastered on his face, his eyes darting around the stage not wanting to miss anything. There, two rows in front of me, i saw the extremes contrasted. These two boys had come together. They shared the same backgrounds, the same culture, they could have been brothers for all i know, and they were having radically different reactions to this work.

Experimental and avant garde work is so rarely produced that there is no reliable marketing data for it, no demographic predictors, no way to categorize or pigeonhole the audience. There are people out there who will like this stuff, on a base level, and the trick is to produce it as widely and in as many unexpected contexts as possible to find those people and build a niche market. That's why the Paint the Town tour was exciting and successful. So many people came to shows expecting a few noise or metal bands and instead, they got radical theatre. Some of them hated it, but many loved it, and wanted more.

So, we can sustainably make art that has rigorous intellectual content, if we're creative enough in our presentation. We can pursue Brecht's ideal of a theatre that educates as it entertains, without simple propagandizing or catharsis-based messages. If we get out of the universities, and bring this work to the masses, we can find people who are hungry for intellectual challenges. Then we'll have the audience and the community and the demand for an art that combines non-bourgeois form with critical content, and the means to create a sustainable production apparatus that will remain out of the hands of the entertainment industry long enough for us to develop a mode of production that rivals and competes with capitalism openly.

Well, that's what could happen once we solve the first two vulnerabilities i mentioned earlier. Which brings us to the third: irony. There is a growing subculture and aesthetic within the community that epitomizes the very opposite of my goals and threatens to lead us all into the marsh of a mediocrity worse than capitalism ever imagined. This is a whole different story. One that requires a new blog post and a gut wrenching account of our experience in Providence (duhn duhn duhn!) Yes, i'm talking about the mullets and mustaches crowd. Check back in about a week, when I'll thoroughly explore this subculture in the forthcoming "Impressions of Tour Part Two: Fuck your Irony."

The Artsy Schmartzy Round Table.

I put together my answers to most of the questions (the ones I have something to say about) from Jonathan West’s Artists Round Table discussion, which I thought was a great success, even though a bit too much (and any at all is too much) of the time was spent whining about needing money and attention.

Anyway, here’s my thoughts.

Each of these questions presupposes a different definition of the word “art”. There are definitions based on the artist’s intention, on the social status symbols, on functionality, on audience reaction, on social purpose and even on froofy soul-feeding quasi-religious magical nonsense, which only serves to confuse things even more.

Really, we need ten or so new words, each replacing “art” in a different context. So, for the rest of this document I am going to sacrifice consistency in favor of clarity (I hope) and follow the definition of art that each question seems to imply or apply.

The questions are paraphrased, shortened, not directly quoted here, and I may be misinterpreting them, but y’know, shit happens.

How conservative are MKE’s audiences? Are there ways to make audiences more receptive to things that are new or challenging—or is the very idea of “new” challenging?

The establishment audience is fairly conservative, but a conservative mainstream is always accompanied by a radical fringe or underground. “New” works can tap into the fringe and then break the mainstream open.

Arts use to spur Economic Growth—What might we do as artists to further economic impact of the arts?

We can own it. Richard Florida et al talk about the creative class as something that works for the bourgeois economy, and he’s right, we create energy, attraction, creativity, all of which are things that businesses want to attract in order to exploit and appropriate it. But, when they appropriate it, they waste it, because they use it to help fuel an obsolete economic system. If we don’t let them appropriate us, then our energy and creativity will multiply within our community and we’ll develop new cooperative systems of exchange and collaboration.

With entertainment increasingly being centered on the comfort of home, how do we make community-building art important enough to draw an audience?

Look to the future. If the current trend is for comfort entertainment, the reaction against that will be for live performance (especially with how virtual reproduction will take the economic bottom out of the recording and film industries). Today’s art consumers wanna sit at home, but tomorrow’s consumers are going to want entertainment as an event, an experience. If we keep it up and focus on producing good accessible live performances (or an “experiential element” to our static art) we will take over.

Is there a way to make “elite” arts affordable?

Yes. Do it cheap. Work Towards a Poor Theatre. Stop acting elite. Expect less monetary reward for your work. Live frugally.

Why the division between who can and can’t be an artist?

Because giving certain objects or methods the social status of being “art” allows artists to separate themselves and justify high prices for their art.

What can we do to engage those who fall away?

Demystify the artistic process, stop using art as a status symbol.

Can art be learned?

Sure. Innate talent plays into it as well, but with the broadness of what art can be, almost everyone should be able to find a skill or talent they have and then learn how to develop that skill or talent into “art”.

Do blogs and websites REALLY serve to close the gap?

The internet is a useful way to connect and build communities, especially broader communities, outside a small geographic area (and it’s incredibly useful to expand to a broader area and then come back to your community as someone who’s work has been shown elsewhere) The internet is not so good for distributing your work itself. Computers and email make the business and coordination side of art production possible without the apparatus that was previously necessary, it closes that gap.

How do we dispel the blue collar image?

A “blue collar image” and a “thriving arts destination” are not mutually exclusive. If we continue to develop the arts scene without fretting over how we don’t look like other arts destinations, maybe we’ll develop a unique, and in the end, a more attractive arts destination.

Do you think Milwaukee is a major player in the arts compared with other cities, some much smaller than us?

I don’t know. I haven’t traveled enough. I feel like I can achieve my goals here, it might not be the best place, but I’ve already started here and I’m not ready to give up quite yet.

Can anyone please give me a job?

NO. Get your own damn job.

How do we work to equalize that support or give younger artists and performers a shot at making an impression on the city and communitee?

Work with them. You know… I really am getting too old to still fell like the youngest person in a group of artists like this, and most of the people I work with are younger than me, some drastically younger. How I work with younger people is to take them seriously, treat them as peers, challenge them, and hold them to the same standard I hold ourselves to. Let them fail, tell them they failed and if they failed out of laziness or irresponsibility let them know they’re a disappointment. Then encourage them to learn from it. No patronizing. No special treatment. No kid’s gloves. Serious young artists want serious criticism. They’ll probably hate the critics, but if they're serious about what they’re doing, they’ll do more of it to prove the critic wrong. If they just want to be coddled, then they’re useless anyway.

Is it time the city mandated some space for the performing arts?

We shouldn’t need the city to mandate that kind of space. It’d be nice, and I’d try to take advantage of it, but we should be able to succeed without it. Becoming dependant on state help (or big bourgeois help) is not a good idea for revolutionary artists.

What role does art play beyond the realm of culture-production?

I like Marshall McLuhan’s idea that artists are sort of predicting the future. Also, at this particular moment in history, the next major revolution in the political economy will be the result of the creative class (artists) forming class consciousness, developing new economic relationships and making capitalism obsolete. But, that’s not an inherent quality of art, only the result of these specific social forces.

Is art a hammer or a mirror?

Art is a hammer used to shape reality. A very shiny hammer that reflects as it shapes. Or maybe it’s a mirror that by creating self-awareness is automatically creating change. Whatever. Art describes things and by describing them changes our awareness of them, and our awareness of a thing inherently changes the thing.

How can we get non-artist Wisconsinites more interested in what we do?

Make it cheap and approachable but still high quality.

Can we make art our actual career without quitting our day jobs?

Yes we can. There are at least three ways: 1. Sell out. Make the right kind of marketable art, get yourself appropriated by the bourgeoisie. 2. find a gullible patron who will fund you. 3. live frugal as hell. Sometimes it’s easier to get the right day job (something mindless with little or no supervision) and do as much of your art or arts administration while you’re supposed to be working.

What ways can we best promote each other?

First, you’ve gotta be good enough that I can honestly want to promote you. Cuz I’m only gonna say good things about something that I can honestly say good things about. Otherwise people aren’t going to value my opinion at all.

What makes a play compelling?

The synthesis of words, action, and presence is what makes theatre compelling. What makes a specific play compelling for me is that it engages with me mentally makes me think about issues that I am passionate about, see them from a different perspective and realize new things.

How do you instill respect and love for the arts in kids when they compare it to professional athletes and illustrious role models?

Turn off the television. Instill values such as frugality, integrity, individuality, responsibility and honesty rather than the values that the television and professional sports community instills (materialism, power, celebrity and fame). Kids will follow role models that reflect the values you instill in them. (As far as how to instill those values goes, don’t ask me. That’s one of the reasons I don’t have kids.)

What gives artwork staying power through the centuries?

Artwork’s staying power through the centuries is a product of it’s institutionalization as a status symbol. I’m not interested in this. I’m interested in yesterday’s art, but only as a foundation for today’s art and today’s art as a building block for tomorrow’s art.

Do artists inspire creative problem solving in others?

Not always, but some artists, certainly.

Is this influence necessary for the advancement of civilization?

Yes.

Is the connection between art and society stronger or weaker than a generation ago?

I wasn’t much around a generation ago, but it seems to me that our society and culture is different than it used to be, more complicated. Nowadays we’ve got this global monoculture, but at the same time we’ve got many thriving sustainable subcultures which are less geographically dependant than in the past. I think this reflects society pretty well.

Would you participate in a collective of your peers that would work to support you through financial support and production management in exchange for community service?

You know I will, Mr Richardson. If you can keep it from getting swamped with desperate whiney artists who think they’re entitled to make a living on their art without having to work for it, that is.

Is there interest among Milwaukee artists for interdisciplinary performance?

Theatre is interdisciplinary.

How do you know if you’re a hack who’s just wasting your time or not?

You can’t know. You can only look back and regret the time you wasted. Life is a constant struggle and you can’t predict the future or really know yourself, what your potential is. You can only do your best to plumb whatever potential you might have. If you think you might not be able to hack it, try quitting. If you can give it up, then do so. If you can’t avoid trying again, then you might still have a chance. It’s a question of when and how the priorities in your life shift.

Can poetry be integrated more fully into other arts in MKE?

Poetry is already involved in some playwriting and in songwriting. Beyond that, I doubt it.

How do you break the established system of MKE arts administrators who feel that they are more important than the artist?

Stop needing them. Administer your own art. Find a way to do your art that circumvents the necessity for administrators.
Arts administration can be an art form itself. Some people I know are amazing at organizing people. This is a necessary and beautiful skill. Joseph Beuys says that society is nothing but a giant kinetic sculpture with many authors who’s bodies and activities make up the material of the sculpture. Administrators are moving those people around, if they do it intentionally and creatively, then they might be more important, and more artistic, than the artists they work with.

Should all museums be free to artists?

No. You’d have to legislate the definition of “artist” or just make the museum free to all. “Admission is $15, sir” “No, I get in free, I’m an artist” “oh, can I see your card?” “what?” “your card. Haven’t you registered?” “Yes, but... my application is awaiting approval.” “Sorry sir.” Just because you think something would be nice doesn’t mean it’s politically practical.

I’m interested in the similarities and differences between forms.

One interesting thing about different art forms is how they fit with different economic and political systems. Feudalism worked well with painting and sculpture because it was based on patronage. Capitalism works well with film and recorded music because it’s based on commodification. Capitalism’s replacement will work best with live performance because it’ll be based on experiences.

What is our impact on civilians?

Whose impact on which civilians? Microcosmically, it can be anything from offending them to recruiting them. Macrocosmically, we predict the future and spread understanding of that future.

How do you as one who lives his or her life as an artist, fit into that discussion (of healthcare and govt services)?

I do not currently make a living on my art. I’ve got a slacker job that I abuse for those benefits. If there were other sources for those benefits, that’d put me one step closer to being a “full time artist”.

Why do people feel the need to create art and why do people keep coming?

This one can be answered ten ways depending on the definition of art. If art is an expression of your emotions or state of mind, then people create it cuz they got things to say and people keep coming because they hear something there. If art is a social status symbol, then people create it to set themselves apart as artists, and people keep coming in order to prove themselves cultured or wealthy. If art is a product of a desire for social change, or a looking towards the future, then people create and consume art because they aren’t happy with the current state of things. If art is the product of any human activity (“can one create works which are not works of art?” –M Duchamp), then we create and consume art because we don’t know what else to do.

What about desires for connections with the audience?

My reaction is more based on Paula’s statements at the table (she asked this question). She mentioned audience falling asleep and getting the same milquetoast praise for every show, even from people who slept through the show, in the front row. She’s talking about the quality of the audience, not just the quantity. Having people who engage with the work, who are critical, who stay awake. In my opinion Paula is having these problems because she’s doing Shakespeare.
Not that there’s something inherently wrong with Shakespeare (I do find it dull as fuck, but that’s just me) the problem with doing Shakespeare is that it attracts a deadly disengaged audience. People who are there for status and obligation, not for art. See Peter Brook, or this discussion: http://rwinsome.blogspot.com/2007/09/debate-is-shakespheare-deadly.html.
Also, we aren’t going to have an engaged audience until we have engaged, critical critics. We aren’t going to have engaged critics until certain theatre producers grow a thicker skin, or at least stop trying to censor their critics. See this diatribe for more: http://rwinsome.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-criticism-community-support-and.html

Do the numerous theatre companies compete against each other, or create more of a theatre going audience?

It depends on the company. Many companies are bickering over the same slice of pie, and it’s a stale, old moldy pie at that. Other companies are reaching out to new audiences and bringing non theatre people in.

Art cliques in MKE, why not cross fertilization?

As someone who works in an inherently collaborative art form, I’m constantly encountering and working with new people. We give all kinds of people a chance, especially with the shows I’ve done with Pink Banana (and now that John Manno has handed Pink Banana over to us, we’ll do more of that) We reach out to new groups and across disciplines whenever we can. There’s tension and hesitation though, because many of the people I’ve encountered are not people that I can work well with. Different people can have radically different approaches to art on so many different levels. Business practices, emotional needs, aesthetic qualifications, ethics, communication methods are all so different, especially among artists. We’re people who make expressing things in unique ways a major part of our lives, so it’s natural that we lack a common language.
Cliques form because people find other people who they can work with and trust. The risk that any new person might turn out to be another whiney, irresponsible, emotionally unstable procrastinator (as far too many artists are) is a disincentive to starting something with them, especially if they give that kind of first impression.

Radiohead.

So, i really don't like Radiohead, but this thing they're doing is perfectly inline with, and provide massive support to the things i'm talking about and have based my life's ideology on. They aren't the first to do it, but they are the biggest, so people are paying attention. here's someone else who summarizes it really well:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/sept07/radiohead.htm

So, what i predict will happen is Radiohead will personally make more money on this than on their previous records, but the record itself will make less. Which is fine, cuz the lost money is only the money that the obsolete recording industry would've appropriated anyway.

Big analysts and the media will call the album a failure, but Radiohead won't and all the indie rockers will be emboldened. This is an extra loud section of the death knell of the recording industry, Hooray!

On Criticism, Community Support and Being an Upstart.

But first, a story.

Oh, wait, no, before that, a disclaimer:

The opinions contained within are the opinions of the author alone. Not of Insurgent Theatre, not of Tracy Doyle and certainly not of gmail, blogspot or any other venue that allows me to publish my opinion. I've always thought such a thing went without saying, but apparently not.

Now the story.

I see as much theatre as I can, I figure there's always something to learn from other companies, and I always have an opinion after a show. My friends and I generally share these opinions and Tracy and I actually started recording and publishing these conversations on my blog. Then, Russ Bickerstaff invited Tracy to write reviews for The Vital Source (and good god is she good at it, her reviews are not only informative, they're also witty and damn fun to read). When Russ extended that invitation to me I jumped at the opportunity.

The first play I saw as an official reviewer was 'Book of Liz' at the Boulevard. When Tracy called for the comps they had an issue with the founders of Insurgent writing reviews, but hesitantly gave us one of the two comps we requested. We had to pay for the other seat. No other company has had a problem with giving Tracy two comps even when she was just "reviewer and guest."

We saw the play and the director there made some terrible choices that damn near ruined it. My review is below, if you want specifics. Tracy wasn't very enthusiastic, so I wrote the review. I had Tracy read it for unnecessary cruelty (knowing my tendencies). I edited it by her advice and submitted it to Russ.

Russ submitted it to Vital Source, Vital then edited big chunks of Tracy-approved criticism from it and put it up. Within a few hours, this twice-softened review it was taken down. I don't have that version, but if you take off the last two sentences from the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs and the word "muck" from the review I submitted (again, find it below) you'll get close to it.

I asked Russ what was up and it turns out Vital got multiple phone calls, emails and even had someone pull their ad on account of publishing my review. I wonder what would’ve happened if it'd said what I really think.

That's the end of the story. Now for my reaction to the story. Please remember the above disclaimer, and if you have a problem with anything I say, air it with me, not anyone else.

To be concise: the fact that someone like Mark Bucher is able to censor his critics is evidence that I am living in the wrong goddamn city, that this city is too immature to have a serious theatre scene, and that artists are making the right choice when they get the fuck out.

Now to be a good deal less than concise, but hopefully more clear: my problem is not with The Vital Source, at all. If they want to edit my review, that's fine. My tone, and I’ll freely admit it is often a harsh one, may not jive with the tone they want to project. That’s their choice and their right. I also don't have a problem with them pulling the review, advertising revenue pays their bills and my opinion isn't anywhere near important enough to lose revenue over (if they backed down under advertising pressure over something less trivial, it'd be a different story.)

My problem falls squarely on the shoulders of Mark Bucher and his cronies who put Vital Source in such a position. These people obviously do not understand the nature of criticism. I think a good, honest, unrestrained, negative-but-constructive critic is something any serious theatre scene needs badly. Indeed it's something any serious artist needs. In a town like Milwaukee, many people are afraid to take that role because they risk accusations of "being unsupportive."

Thing is, groundless praise does not support a good theatre scene. It props up crap and it creates distrust of reviewers, which disempowers the audience. When you defang the critics, the audience has nothing to read but lukewarm reviews and nothing to get excited about, or to compare their experience to. When a critic with a reputation of being a curmudgeon and a jerk gives praise, it'll actually mean something, to the actors and directors as well as to the audience. It's something we need more of here.

Now, I'm willing to take on that role, regardless of how many enemies it generates. Insurgent Theatre will weather all storms. But, I don't want other people to be punished for letting me express my opinion. I can't believe I've devoted my life to making art in a city where a newspaper loses money as a punishment for honestly covering the arts. It seems this is not an isolated incident. I understand that this type of bullshit is behind OnMilwaukee.com not publishing theatre reviews anymore, either.

The fact that these local independent news sources that support the arts (often reviewing shows that others won't even acknowledge) have lost revenue because Mark Bucher's feelings were hurt by something I said is sick. Clearly these people are not only confused about the nature of art criticism, but also about the concept of community support. Attacking a newspaper because they published an opinion you disagree with is not supporting the theatre community. It's supporting one pathetic little man's ego at the expense of the rest of the theatre community.

I also take issue with Bucher and company's superficial justification for their actions, that somehow me writing a review is a conflict of interest and inappropriate. First, I call this a superficial justification, because this is not an isolated incident, and Tracy and I have just started writing reviews.

Second, it isn’t a conflict of interest because Insurgent Theatre is not competing with The Boulevard. They would never produce the kind of plays we put up, indeed, I doubt they'd ever even come and see the plays we put up. We're a DIY theatre company, reaching out to a small niche audience of young working class punks and students, not the traditional theatre audience that Bucher plays to. We're competing with local garage bands more than local theatre companies. Somehow underage punk rockers can handle this competition with the maturity and enthusiasm that is lacking in Bucher’s response.

Third, even if we were competition, it wouldn’t matter. There’s nothing wrong with reviews written by other theatre people, indeed who better to review a show than someone who produces theatre? I don't believe Tracy and I are the only active theatre producers to write a review these days. I'm totally guessing here, but I bet if you stopped every playwright, director or actor from writing reviews you'd quickly run pretty low on critics. Criticism is not a business transaction, it’s an exchange of ideas.

Forth, in case my guess is off, if nowadays only lay people are allowed to write reviews, I know it hasn't always been that way, and what's more it shouldn’t be that way. Bertolt Brecht (to use my favorite example for almost anything these days) acquired quite a reputation for writing scathing reviews of the “competitors” of his time. Surely the discussions started in these reviews contributed to his theories on theatre and helped make him one of the, if not the most influential playwright of the 20th century.

Now, I recognize that, like Brecht, I can be something of a trouble maker, that my insistence on honesty, my enjoyment of a good burn, and my refusal to get by on tact and politeness can cause trouble. But that's my choice. I'll readily absorb all kinds of hate and blame from whiney artists, bring it on. How else am I supposed to change my mind? Maybe I got something wrong, and if you tell me off I might learn something. At any rate, I love that kind of conflict because it gets close to truth and it's resolution is beautiful and educational. Conflict brings about change, development, improvement. So I welcome it.

See, I prefer achievements and a shared learning experience over appeasements and superficial friendships based on false compliments. I realize that some people can't handle that, and those are people who have a hard time being my friend. So be it. That’s unfortunate, but unavoidable, because I’m not going to moderate and sugar-coat my opinions and personality because that doesn’t give people the opportunity to prove they are not whiney little bitches. I surround myself with people who will treat me the same way, cuz there's nothing I like less than receiving praise that I can’t fully believe in.

If we treat everyone like children, no one will ever need to rise to the challenge of acting like an adult and engaging in a direct genuine interaction. So, I come on strong, I insult strangers and sometimes intentionally act like a jerk. I know that's weird and can be seen as counter-productive, but, it works for me. It's my way of doing things and my reason for doing it, and mostly, it works very well. Examples include my interaction with Monica Bennet and Faythe Levine and now in the opposite direction, the direction of someone failing to rise to the challenge, of proving unequivocally that he is a whiney little
bitch, Mark Bucher.

So, if Bucher failed the litmus test my assholery presents, then why do I care? Why have a written a fucking diatribe about it? Why didn't I just write his name in the "useless shitheads" column and move on? Because maybe talking about this, or thinking about it, or working on it, can change things.

Now, I don't think I can change Mark Bucher. He’s got twenty-two years of experience running his company how he runs it (and, hey, it’s working for him, and over the course of those twenty-two years he has done quite a bit of good.) I also doubt I can change whoever the fuck was stupid enough to pull their ad from The Vital Source over my review, but I can change other things.

If you go back to the concise version, the part where I'm talking about artists getting the fuck out of this town, you'll notice that I said "evidence" not "proof." Things don't have to be this way, and not all things are this way. There is counter-evidence, there is potential. Milwaukee's immaturity frustrates me, but it's
Milwaukee's immaturity that gives us an opportunity to make things happen here. The theatre establishment isn't quite as established as it is in other bigger cities.

I don't expect to change Mark Bucher or his audience or the people who support or appease this kind of shenanigans. Instead, I expect to build a new audience and a new community. To mobilize radical artists who are seeking more than a shelter for mediocrity, who want art that does more than “feed the soul” or in this case, the ego.

So, come on people, if the Boulevard still can't handle a negative review like adults after twenty-two years of them, they can't be that hard to shove out of our way.

Oh, yeah, here's the review that started it all:

Art and Politics (email discussion)

Had an interesting email conversation today.

BEN TURK
art and politics10 messages

David Bohn
Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 6:48 PM

There is a music video by rap artists mos def, immortal technique, and surprisingly eminem that has become popular... when you watch it you will see that it is pretty lyrically raw and powerful, and it got me thinking about how ben talked about Jim thinking not a lot of people saw the last show (arguably, I thought it sold well) because it was experimental and perhaps too controversial... I guess my question is, how do political-minded artists get their message to a mainstream audience and have an impact instead of 'preaching to the choir' (michael moore), and, what must be sacrificed for it to get to that point? For example, one of my favorite movies is 'v for vendetta', and when some of us were carpooling somewhere a few weeks ago, some of you said you didn't like it, yet to me it seemed like a huge success because it went #1 at the box office and reached tens of thousands of people. When does art matter and when is it simply cathartic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0'tell the truth' - mos def, immortal technique, eminem -dave

kelli korducki
Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Immortal Technique is the bomb. I love that guy! To answer your question though, I think it's hard to answer because art is in many ways a subjective entity whose various mediums have the potential to elicit different responses from different audiences. This makes measuring how much art "matters," or how effectively it communicates its message, difficult to gauge. Sometimes, the number of people reached by a given piece can serve as a measure of its significance or "sucess", but seeing as we live in a time where people like Dr. Phil sell more books than, say, A.F. Moritz (a Gugenheim poet and an awesome, brilliant dude) and musical tastes tend to drift toward complete crap like Pussycat Dolls or whatever, we know that mass-popularity is hardly an accurate measure of artistic merit. So, I guess I can't answer your question because I don't know how to approach what it means for art to "matter." Maybe there's no singular answer? Anyway, interesting question. Peace out! Kelli

JAMES LUCAS TURK
Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Immortal Technique is a slightly more intelligent version of the Dead Prez or Jedi Mind Tricks revolutionary but Gansta persona (I say persona b/c all of those groups are selling the revolutionary image. IT all but admits it on Revolutionary, Vol. 2 and if the Dead Prez were so Gangsta and Ghetto they probably would have found somewhere other than Comit to hangout at everyday for the week they were in milwaukee last month.) Anyhow i do think that IT, DP and even to some degree crazy ass JMT believe in the things they are talking about and want to press others into thinking about the actions that thier songs claim they take, not unlike Rage Against the Machine. So how does a fairly fringe hip hop artist like IT get his message out to a wide audience? Networking. Even though Mos Def and Eminem did very little on this song (does anyone know who the producer was?) it is thier names that has most people interested in the video. If this video is to be an example of expanding your audience and art to reach a more impactful number of people then i would say you need to find a way to collaborate with artist who can get you that audience. my suggestion is to have Brad Pitt star in the next insurgent theater production.

Matt Richardson
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 12:57 AM

I would agree with pieces of both Kelli's and James' viewpoints.
It is my opinion that art, in any form, matters most when it is effective. For these purposes I define "effective" as: The result of an artist's work having the desired effect on the audience (i.e. Billy produced a sculpture in the hopes that couples would fornicate upon viewing his work. The audience responded as he had hoped, and his work was effective).
Effectiveness is determined by the artist, and then interpreted by the audience. So art with a purpose to make money is still art, albeit a bastardized form of the purity of art, which I believe is to expand one's intelligence and culture and challenge us to grow as human beings rather than turning us into a horde of baby-eating advertising whores.
I believe that, if a small DIY theatre company were to partner with a well-known commercial entity or organization, they would reap the benefits of the resources and audience of that entity. However there is the inevitability that said entity would attempt to force the small DIY troupe to conform to certain guidelines, which may interfere with our DIY troupe's art, message or vision.
However, I believe that mutual accommodation and cooperation between these groups will maintain the corporate and family-friendly image of the commercial entity, while maintaining artistic integrity and artistic effectiveness.
So what the fock, that's what I think.
-MR

David Bohn
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 1:14 AM
To: esmartwave@yahoo.com

i think ks-one produced it... I think eminem knows this when he was featured in this song (his place in bringing mainstream attention to IT's words). i think that this song is a very good example of a meaningful work reaching far beyond fan-dom and has potential for some type of change, sparking people in the mainstream to research what he is talking about and educating themselves through the references of his lyrics... I know I have done this myself. I don't think IT is attempting to sell his image, which is why i respect him more than RATM, and I respect him because I think his art matters. I have to believe art can make a difference, to respond to kelli, it's important because I have been having a crisis of feeling I am not accomplishing anything with the work I am doing in a broad sense, which may just be something I need to accept, but whatever. It's definitely a fine line, to maintain underground clout but still make what you are doing remain relevant. Partnering with a bigger name, to respond to matt, is hard too because that popular source has to have controversy surrounding them as well.... in sense of theatre, i think theater X is a good example of an independent diy group reaching a wider audience, I mean, they toured the world and had an obie, but still remained relevant... they earned their name and became popular through their own devices.

R Winsome
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:05 AM

I don't think art can change things through what it says, but i think it can change a lot through what it does. My greatest success as a playwright has never been with affecting the audience, but with affecting our actors. Darrel Cherny, ShirenRattigan, Jason Hames, Tim Chrapko, Ian Clark, and many other had all never seriously acted before being cast in one of our shows. Darrel is now a commited actor (and i still hope he gets tired of playing with shakesphere and comes back to his DIY roots) Shiren is a organizer with ACORN and freely admits that being in BTWH is what politicized her. Jason, Tim and Ian continue to act in the DIY theatre vein, more and more aggressivly all the time. Then there are also all the established actors and playwrights we've given new experiences and different opportunities too, including you, David.
It is my understanding that propaganda doesn't change shit, even that politics (reformist elections AND revolutionary actions) doesn't change shit. If we want shit to change we need to change the root economic system that all that is built on top of.
it is also my understanding that the fastest growing sector in the developed world (before the war mobilization, anyway) is arts and entertainment. This signifies a major economic shift and I see it as an opportunity. Whatever economic system makes the best arts and entertainment most efficiently in the coming years will become the dominant economic system (just as capitalism was better at making commodities than fuedalism and has now taken over agriculture too).
It is also my understanding that, given new technology, there is a shift in customer desires from recorded media to real live experiences. Which means performance. Which means live music and theatre. There is a big shake-up coming in how people get their art.This shake up is, again, an opportunity.
In conclusion, i think the most effective purveyors of the performing arts will be taking over the goddamn world in the next 50 to 100 years. Let's be those people. Lets do it in a way that tends toward greater cooperation, equality, rationality and sustainability.
So... there is a war coming. I think the relationship between myself and the people Matt is talking about is an inherently antagonistic relationship. I will go along with Matt's plans as long as it's clearto me that by doing so i am benefiting at their expense, that i am ripping them off and not ever risking becoming dependent on them. cuz they are my enemy. they are trying to make it so capitalism can still run the show after these shake ups and i am absolutely committed to not letting that happen.
David, how much what you do matters, has less to do with the messages of the plays you are in than the means the producers you work with employ. Rex

R Winsome
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Oh, and i forgot to mention, helping people like Peter J Woods "destroy art and recreate it in his own image" is completely consistant with this mission. In fact, the subject matter of Made in the Mouth is more politically effective than Bring the War Home.
We'll take over the world, my boy, we'll take over the world.
Rex

Matt Richardson
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:46 AM

To expand further on MR. Winsome's comments, as he and I agree on some basic principles on this matter, albeit with different angles of approach. I would love to see the world that is described below occur. I think, however, that the performing arts serve as just one piece of the puzzle tothe economic solution. It seems to me that Milwaukee, like a volcano, has reached a critical mass with its current infrastructure, and will soon eruptwith lava, destroying some old things and creating new opportunities. This is already occurring with the creation of loads of condominiums downtown, which will push the average joe/jane (like us) out of the downtown and eastside area to locations that are more affordable, wherever that may be. The entire city of Milwaukee is experiencing a growing realization that keeping intelligent, creative business people and artists is good for the city in many ways. However, no one can agree on the right way to bring them here.
So here is my criteria:
1. Have an affordable, clean public transportation solution that allows aperson or persons to effectively get cross-town (say from the North Shore toBay View) within 20 minutes in winter and end up within 3-4 blocks of your destination. This transportation method should also connect the suburbs at major points to the downtown area. Light rail or trolleys or undergroundwalkways are probably the best for Milwaukee (Toronto uses all three very successfully).
2. Have areas in the city that are affordable not only to live in, but to start and operate a small business. Possibly "economic growth" areas that offer lower taxes and incentives to owners/renters.
3. Utilize technology to keep the city green, people connected, citizens safe and give the local government a higher level of efficiency which is sorely lacking to date.
4. Promote "the creative class" and alternative living situations by funding and promoting organizations that support local creative or social ventures. Provide economic benefits to be one of these organizations and use political influence to support these entities.
5. Look at general social issues i.e. healthcare and formulate new and innovative plans that give people what they need and encourage them to come to Milwaukee and stay, like a state-run socialized healthcare system.
Either way, Rexie is right: a war is coming. It is on the shoulders of someone or someones to make these changes happen in order to advance our society. Every thing that you do, whether writing a play or acting in it or sponsoring it, that promotes the advancement of our society through artistic or economic means is a step in the right direction. It is our duty as occupants of this planet to do what we can to bring that kind of harmony to our existence and to promote the continued propagation of our race and our intelligence through socially conscious methods.-Matty R

R Winsome
Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Look at that! Matt Richardson takes my lofty abstract ideals and turns them into practical solutions on a local level. What a guy!
trouble is, i'm skeptical that any government entitiy will be able to acheive Matt's goals, cuz the government serves the status quo (that is the nature of government) and the status quo is either threatened by (1+4) or seeks to usurp and pervert (2+3) or just doesn't wanna spend the money on (5) the programs Matt is advocating.
If the local government begins to recognize the importance ofattracting the creative class we're going to be competeing for the benefits with other organizations that are already better funded, better organized, better marketed and much less genuinely "creative class" and THAT is who we're at war with.
I guess i'd rather fight on my own turf than fight for government patronage (which i'm concerned about attached strings and dependency-creation anyway)
three roads to getting there (the things i think oughta be big picture goals of Insurgent Theatre right now):
1. theatre workshop - ongoing activity, presence and skill building
2. a small tight touring show - what nonsense company and missoula oblongata are doing
3. doing what we've been doing, but with serious effort at solving the venue and promotion problems, which might just mean throwing a lot ofmoney around, which means solving the fundraising problem or emptying our own pockets.
Rex

The Purple Cow

I recently read "the Purple Cow" By Seth Godin (given to me by Jon at http://www.joochy.org/)

The book is a marketing guy's take on how businesses should look at marketing. Guess what he says? Basically, that the marketing department should take over the whole business. That the choice of what product to sell, the design of the product, etc etc etc should all be made by the marketing department. What's more, the marketing department should take on high risk projects and then not be blamed when the projects fail, cuz risky remarkable things are the only things that have a chance (even though it's a slim chance). It's really pretty great because of course he's going to say this, he's a marketing guy, and the first thing he has to sell is himself, and his profession. I notice the same thing happening with the marketing department at my day job. What does this say about advanced capitalism?

Plus, he says Ozzy Osbourne is more remarkable than Joseph Bueys.

So, obviously dude's got his head up his ass, but (while up there) he seems to be seeing something happening. I think what he's seeing isn't "the new way marketing has to work" he's seeing capitalism's last grasp at a consumer that is less interested in the things that capitalism is good at making. People want remarkable things? Well, artists make remarkable things, that's what art is. Remarkable things (by definition) cannot be mass produced by alientad workers in a factory. The bourgeois mode of production doesn't work for these things, and all of us "post-consumer" consumers are more and more interested in these things.

Thing is, what I and my friends do (indeed what Jon from joochy does) is too remarkable for Seth Godin. We're Joseph Beuys to his Ozzy Osbourne. We can't do what he describes "successful" purple cows doing. We can't be sold out, cross over to mass market, boom and then fizzle after a short period of raking in billions. We're too out there, too risky. We're "just weird", so even the most risky corporation is never going to invest in us. That's fine, cuz even without corporate distribution and investment, we can get by. If we're all getting by and (as a whole) producing better stuff than the few "remarkable" capitalist products that breifly surge to the top because they have access to capitalist distribution and backing, then eventually (given new technologies that make distribution more accessible and backing less necessary) we are going to take this thing over.