Discussion at Bedlam

Last Saturday i gave a presentation at Bedlam Theatre in Minneapolis about my thoughts on art-as-revolution and theatre's role in that. Preparation for this presentation invovled first writing it out in long form, (cuz i'm a playwright, starting with writing a long monologue, somehow makes sense) then I condensing it to an outline and talked from that (so i wouldn't just be reading at people). At anyrate, this means i've got a rough essay-like document of what i said, which i will now post here for the reading pleasure of probably nobody but my own future self.

Bedlam Discussion

Our intention as a theatre company, or at least my intention as a theatre artist is to participate in and advance a revolutionary change of the global political economy, a change I've already observed in progress. Today I'm going to do four things.

1. Outline the change
2. Discuss theatre's role in that change
3. Explore how this intention impact the work we do.
4. Take questions. I plan on keeping the part where I'm talking at you relatively brief and general, then go more in depth about things based on what you seem interested in.

Objective 1: outlining the revolutionary change in the global political economy.

I need to start with Marx, since that's who I'm lifting most of my terminology from. Marx has been read many many many different ways, and I don't want to get bogged down in Marxist polemics, so I'm going to keep this as simple and concise as possible. There are two things about Marx, one is what he did right, and the other is what he got wrong.

First, Marx created a radically different and in many ways superior description of capitalism. He starts with the most basic abstract description of the relationship at the core of the capitalist system. From there he describes what happens in the aggregate, when that core relationship comes to dominate and define an entire economic system. This is where all kinds of wonderful concepts come from: exploitation, labor theory of value, commodity fetishism, worker alienation, the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Really beautiful stuff. Some of these concepts have proven more accurate or useful than others. I'd like to get into them all more thoroughly later.

The important thing is that Marx's predictions that in capitalism, the rich will grow richer and the poor more numerous, that these classes will be in conflict, and that this conflict can be seen at the root of all political conflict has been validated by history. His prediction that these trends will cause the entire system to collapse might be coming true now, with amendments to account for the unexpected craftiness of corporations, the power of advertising, and the alchemy of monetary and economic policy-making.

His prediction that this conflict and immanent collapse will result in the spontaneous mobilization of a class-conscious proletariat is where I think Marx went wrong. Some Marxists will defend his position on this. They'll say that historical examples like the USSR are a terrible misapplication of his theory, and they're right, but still, I think any approach that uses the dictatorship of the proletariat, or this kind of top-down-government-first revolution is doomed to follow a similar path.

The revolution has to start on an economic level. We need to develop a new more efficient mode of production, based on a different core economic relationship. Once we've done that, then we can let new classes, new political institutions and revolutionary actions grow naturally out of the conflict between this system and the dominant capitalist mode.

Marx considered this approach, but rejected it because he believed the ruling class wouldn't allow such a system to develop. He was unable to imagine a historical situation where something radically different can co-exist in competition with capitalism. There is a historical precedent for this though: the capitalist revolution.

Class antagonism in feudalism was between serfs and lords. The capitalist mode of production was developed by the merchant class, the bourgeoisie, who had a better way of doing things. They competed economically with and eventually politically defeated the lords, ushering in a new system. If we graph Marx's approach onto this historical situation, it the equivalent of serfs spontaneously rising up, taking the crown off the king and then designing a new society from that position. It's absurd. The proletariat can no more replace the bourgeoisie today than serfs could replace lords then, the revolution needs to come from a third class.

So, then the question is, how do we do it? How do we repeat the method of the capitalist revolution in order to replace capitalism itself? The answer is: we already are. If we look at art as a mode of production, a new "core economic relationship" then we can look at the "rise of the creative class" as the beginnings of a revolution. Punk Rockers, D I Y crafters, and independent musicians and filmmakers are building networks and institutions that function under a radically different sort of economy. As artists develop and improve these alternative approaches, we become a more powerful challenge to the capitalist world.

Capitalism responds, as Marx predicted, with all kinds of laws, barriers to entry, power grabs, bribes and attempts to co-opt the revolution even as it occurs. The creative class lives up to it's name, over the years we've worked our way around them all. Modern business practices, flex-time, profit sharing, informal work environments, and fake "independent" subsidiaries are all examples of businesses benefiting by adapting to and trying to imitate this radically different economy. Early capitalists were imitated, bribed and co-opted by the monarchy as well.

I predict that eventually, the growth of radical alternatives and the slow mutations of the establishment will result in an undeniably altered political economy. This is starting in the arts and entertainment sector, but it has the potential to transfer to other economic sectors.

Poll the audience: move on, or discuss?

Objective 2: Theatre's role in this

That last part, about innovations in the arts and entertainment sector transferring to other sectors of the economy is key. There is historical precedent for that as well. Capitalism beat feudalism because it was better at making wealth through the production and distribution of durable goods. Feudalism was all about agriculture. Capitalism rode the rise of commodities to the top, and then took over agriculture with great success and in the long term, disgusting catastrophic results like factory farms.

Revolutionary artists can do the same thing. The arts and entertainment sector of the economy has been growing faster than any other sector except for the military since the war started. Artists are better at making art than corporations, we can dominate this sector, ride it to the top, and then transfer our efficiencies to other sectors. This transfer has already started. Craft fairs are multiplying like little crocheted rabbits. Organic and community farming is growing rapidly, with results that are quite the opposite of disgustingly catastrophic.

So, lets look closer at the arts and entertainment sector of the economy, this thing we're gonna ride to the top. Different economic systems create different environments in which arts and culture themselves are manifested. Different mediums function differently under these changed circumstances. Painting and sculpture did well in the feudalism because the art economy there is based on patronage, art products are symbols of status. It's essential that they be one-of-a-kind, owned by some powerful figure and on public display, preferably larger than life. This kind of patronage continues to exist today, and it continues to fund visual arts. Under the patronage system performing arts were reshaped to fit the funding model. Theatre developed the proscenium stage, musicians assembled into symphonies. Everything was based on showing how big and glorious the art that the patron financed was.

Capitalism changed that. It created the age of mechanical reproduction, which as discussed by Walter Benjamin, greatly altered the way art is created and distributed. Within the capitalist world the art forms that best fit mass production do best. Photography, film, recorded music burst unto the scene and largely replaced everything that came before. They were easily commodified and mass produced. The biggest profits came from moving many small cheap identical replications, rather than a few unique expensive objects. This created a desert for theatre and live music, who hobbled along on the crutches of merch sales or the holdovers of patronage.

We're now entering a new system of reproduction. The age of virtual or digital reproduction is going to change the landscape just as drastically as the age of mechanical reproduction did. Now mass identical units can be created and distributed by anyone at almost no cost. This has three effects: 1. the evaporation of profit from mechanical reproduction, the RIAA will inevitably lose their war against piracy. 2. the democratization of these art forms, anyone can make the stuff, you don't need a record contract anymore. 3. a sea of mediocrity. If you've spent anytime on YouTube or myspace, you know what I'm talking about. A few diamonds in the rough, but also lots and lots of unremarkable shit.

If the profits of mechanical reproduction evaporate, then we're going to see far fewer successful big budget movies, or high profile bands. This is already happening, the logical conclusion is replacement of movies and TV with YouTube and myspace. Which means these mediums are going to drown in the sea of mediocrity, just like they starved theatre and live music during the age of mechanical reproduction.

So, if reproducible mediums become awash of mediocrity, what'll happen next? Consumer demands shift. People want something valuable, something remarkable. They can't find that in film or recorded music anymore. If they do, they don't have to pay for it, which means they can spend their money elsewhere. They'll want to spend it on an experience. And, that's what theatre can provide.

But, not theatre as it exists today. Theatre as it exists today is defined by the system of patronage that helped it hobble along for the last 100 years. It's mostly still stuck on proscenium stages, and full of snobbery, polish, and ornamental status symbols. It's a weak form, a dying art. Which means it's vulnerable. Which means the revolutionary core of the artist class can gain control of it. If theatre is now near the bottom of the ladder of art mediums, but has an opportunity to rise to the top of that ladder, and is vulnerable to an insurgency, then that insurgency can ride the rise of theatre to the top of the arts and entertainment sector of the economy, and then ride the arts and entertainment sector to the top of the economy in general. From there, we can take the efficiencies we've found and apply them to other forms of production.

Poll the audience: move on, or discuss?

Objective 3: how these intentions impact our performance technique.

So far I've been working under the assumption that "new" is better. That a post-capitalist mode of production will be an improvement. I don't want to give the impression that this is an unexamined assumption. I think the new mode of production will be like organic farming v factory farming. It will solve many of the problems created by capitalism. Most importantly, the new mode of production seems much less hardwired for gross and arbitrary inequality than the capitalist mode.

I can go more in-depth with this, but first I'd like to get through the part about how we produce and perform theatre. There are three parts of this, the organizational part, the context part, and the technique part.

The organization part is most important to me. It is essential that Insurgent Theatre be run by artists for artists. The large bureaucracies that mediate and dominate the theatre world are counter productive. The "artistic temperament" that says 'I am a creative soul! My genius cannot be encumbered by monetary of business concerns!' is equally counter productive. These set up a division of labor, a conflict of interests because the artist group and the admin group. This conflict naturally exists in any artistic endeavor, but dealing with it by making two groups of people exacerbates the problem, and privileges the admin group- who has the power of the purse, over the artist group. Mike Daisy's monologue "how theatre failed America" explores the negative effects that this division has had on theatre. I instead approach the creation and organization of Insurgent Theatre as an exciting creative challenge on par with any of our productions.

How it's organized: All profits from any production are shared equally by the people involved in the production. These profits are small. The people involved need to be motivated by the work as it's own reward. The shows are mounted with little or no budget. All advertising, design, promotion, and admin work are done either by the artists involved, or by volunteers.

We hold open auditions for most of our productions. Artists involved in one production are encouraged to take part in discussions of future productions. Decisions are made and tasks distributed by consensus and volunteering. In this way we've built a constantly evolving ensemble. People come and go, only 2 of us have been involved in every production.

Many aspects of this organization aren't radical at all. They're typical of many small theatre companies, they are the product of necessity as much as by choice. What I hope to do is to identify the virtues of this organization, the ways in which it is more efficient than other production methods, and focus on developing them in order to successfully compete with the increasingly corporate approach that big theatres take. One exciting aspect is the organization of labor. Our evolving ensemble is based on labor that is at once liquid, and empowered.

On context: this is also very important. Our versatility and low overhead allows us to produce theatre in non-traditional contexts, to connect with non-theatre audiences, often the exact demographic that traditional theatre's talk about needing to get in their seats. We were inspired to get even more ambitious with this and start touring when we met The Missoula Oblongata. Now we've performed Paint the Town in bars, basements, art centers, black boxes, a public park, an alley, and a dining room. We've performed with a wide variety of different musical acts: folk, noise, punk, metal, hiphop, experimental, pop, shoegaze, etc. Often the audiences don't know that they're coming to see a play, especially not a full length, text heavy, esoteric reference ridden one like this, and they are usually pleasantly surprised.

Organization and context are more important to me than content. What we do doesn't matter as much as how we do it. But, the more we develop the organization and push the context, the more the content reflects these processes. At least in the projects I write or spearhead.

What I'm trying to do is continue the experiments that Bertolt Brecht pursued. Creating a critically engaged audience that makes decisions and isn't merely inspired to act, but is forced to take a side in an argument and let that argument shape their life. Many of the techniques we employ come from Brecht, Grotowski, Peter Brook, and others, with our own interpretations, and punk-rock conventions. Most of us are self-taught, researching these things on our own, and those of us who have formal training, it was mostly in a much more traditional direction.

Perform for intimate audiences.
Perform on the same level as the audience seating.
Lights and tech operated by the actors themselves.
Direct address to audience.
Actively involving the audience.
Reciting stage directions while performing them.
Brechtian "distanced" acting methods
Actors prepare in the open, and mingle with the audience before performing.
Setting up the scene on stage after the show has begun
Disregard for dramatic suspense.
Presenting audience with naked exposition
Presenting images as symbolic puzzles for the audience to solve.
Most importantly: stories that serve as little more than a vehicle for an ideological argument which remains unresolved on the stage.

Chat with Chad

Last night i discussed all this theoretical stuff with Chad Van Schoelandt. Chad is a philosophy grad student at UWM. He's studied many of these things far more thoroughly than i have, from a philosophical angle. The discussion was very useful. We surely didn't agree on things, but Chad's opinions and responses, mostly skeptical, helped to redirect my thoughts. These are my impressions / conclusions, cuz i like to have all this stuff in one place at one time. Chad is largely responsible for many of the ideas contained here, but i may be misrepresenting or mistating them, and i am definitely taking them out of context, so don't expect it to make a lot of sense.


Process: tell a story, non-capitalist system discovers benefits and efficiencies and applies them. Mindset adaptations, not moralizing. The intentions of the producers do not matter, the results matter. The results, per Marx's predictions are that if artists are developing a new mode of production, it will either become capitalism, or will exist alongside but subordinate to capitalism.


Becoming capitalism: artists compete for resources, those that attract and earn the best talent, most fans, highest donations, most downloads, etc etc will succeed economically, regardless of their intentions, and those that do not attract or earn such things will fail. The failing artists will then have no choice but to work for the succeeding ones, or work with them under an arrangement of unequal returns. Any idealistic band that resists this stands to lose in the long term. The market does this automatically. You could avoid it by forcing fans to like and fund everything equally.


My response is that a truely radical mode of production can resist this tendency. That new social norms will allow a less competitive arrangemet. This required much discussion on the definition of capitalism. Chad maintained that capitalism is defined by private property ownership, and a free market. I tried to define capitalism based on a particular labor relationship. Chad cautioned against using Marx's term "exploitation" to describe this relationship, because that word carries technical baggage and is more specific than i want to be. I agrued that Chad's definition of private property was over broad, and didn't leave room for non-private property arrangements. Various examples were used, which got rather absurd and humorous. There's a boomerang collective in washington state somewhere that just makes boomerangs and gives them away, cuz they love making boomerangs and don't need to get paid to make them. But, while they're working on the boomerangs, the half-finished boomerang is "owned" by them under private property rights, so they're still capitalist. capitalism then becomes monolithic and there is no allowance for "not capitalism".


We got into a discussion of social norms. Capitalism maintains itself because private property rights are socially accepted. Capitalism requires "civil society" in which a vast majority of people do not shoplift, or swindle, or bribe, or otherwise con the system. Post-soviet russia and poland are examples of people adapting to this mindset. Shoplifting is possible. The police cannot enforce or prevent shoplifting on a grand scale. The reason most people do not just take what they need out of a store isn't because they're scared of the security guard, it's because that is not done. When you look further at this mindset it's a socially ingrained acceptance of the idea that if everyone stole from the store, then there'd be no store anymore. Therefore i ought not steal from the store. This kind of thinking is automatic and ingrained in social norms.


I propose that a different mindset can be automatic and ingrained in social norms. The post-capitalist mindset can involve the recognition of the system on a broader scale. I shouldn't shop at walmart because when everyone engages in the capitalist mode of production, unpleasant things happen, ie: externalities, inequality, crime, pollution, big government, etc etc etc. or even, I should donate money to this artist even though i could get it without paying, or download the songs for free because i want him to be able to live off creating art, because i want more art created. The post-capitalist mindset includes a solution to the free-rider problem. Not only do we not steal, we pay for things that we could get for free. Or even give away things for free with the knowledge that, if everyone gives things away for free, then i can get whatever i need.


This line of argument is uncomfortable for me, because it's impractical. I don't seek to alter the mindset of everyone, it's more important to discuss how we can get there. Chad also insists on this. Now, it seems to me that mindset shifts of this sort grow out of habits and develop in a mutually reinforcing process with new economic practices. Chad doesn't see these practices developing systemically. he admits that it is within human nature to adopt this sort of mind set 5% of israelis do it in kibbutz. But, kibbutz is not an independent self-replicating system, first of all, and secondly, if it was, that doesn't make it a replacement for capitalism.


This gets into the "alongside capitalism and subordinate" problem. If artists acheive and maintain an alternative mode of production, along with this new mindset, then all we've done is what churches and kibbutzes have always done without at any point challenging or threatening the capitalist mode of production. Replace "religion" with "art". Obviously, this is not what i want. At all.


For art to do more than religion, to actually challenge capitalism, we need to have an amoral reason that we are more efficient or otherwise superior to capitalism. I need to define efficiency quickly here, cuz people often get caught up on this. Efficiency is creating greater value with less resources (materials, equipment, labor, time). In the capitalist approach to efficiency, lesser value is created, but with much less resources, especially less of the most expensive resources: time and labor. Also, capitalism ignores many costs, steals the materials, and creates externalities. So, in today's society "efficiency" is associated with factory production of low quality objects. This does not have to be the case. The post-capitalist mode could be more efficient than the capitalist mode by creating much greater value, at the same or slightly more resources, or a shift of resources: more labor, less materials. As materials become more scarce, such a shift seems likely.


This goes back to the rise of capitalism. When the feudal property relation (divine right of kings) became a fetter on capitalist production, and the capitalism proved more efficient, the capitalists replaced the feudal system in revolutionary wars and created a new legal system based on their property relation (private property). Chad argued that a post-capitalist class won't become revolutionary until they encounter private property as a fetter on their more efficient mode of production.


I disagree. it is possible that the private property relation becomes, rather than a fetter or roadblock to post-capitalist production, simply a competitive disadvantage. It is possible that a transition will not require severe violent over-through, but a slow take over in open competition, given our more open and adaptable political and social systems. It's also possible that our political and social systems will become more rigid on this subject, that new much more prohibitive laws protecting the capitalist property relation will be written, as capitalists recognize that they are being threatened. The RIAA and intellectual property rights law seems to indicate tightening of this sort. Also, in history (i need to check this out) i kind of doubt that the divine right of kings was enforced as a law until merchants became wealthy enough to try and own land. Similarly, an alternative property relation could become outlawed once it is potentially practiced by artists.


Actually, this is kind of happening to some degree. Many artists squat in abandoned buildings, or rent out unwanted buildings for low cost and turn them into studios or performing spaces. The government then comes in and kicks them out or forces them to get an occupancy permit. Street art is another example. Squatting in an abandoned warehouse and transforming it into a vital space, creating events or experiences of value, is sort of like the other side of the free rider problem. Capitalism creates empty spaces on the train and doesn't allow people to put them to use. This is ineffcient. Punks exploit this inefficiency, put the spaces to use, hop the trains and otherwise become free riders. But at the same time, punks create communities that voluntarily support themselves, communities that don't fall victim to the free rider problem, or that manage to sustain themselves inspite of the social acceptance (even celebration) of free ridership. I suppose chad would just say that these punks are free riding on goods that capitalists create. But i think it merits further investigation. The fact that these punks are exploiting the free rider problem whenever they can (dumpstering food, hopping trains, sneaking in to concerts) and still creating small economies, means that there is a significant portion of the population who is actively confronting the free rider problem from both sides. If a solution comes, it seems likely to come from this group. My guts say part of the answer is in connection between consumer and producer.


This connection between consumer and producer is an important part of my theory. This rising consumer demand is, i think, anti-capitalist. The fact that more consumers want a connection, an understanding of where their purchases came from, especially favoring buying directly from the producer, as in hand-made craft fairs, or merch sales at concerts, indicates a distrust with the capitalist producers, and a rejection of commodity fetishism. Chad warns against using the phrase commodity fetishism because it holds a precise meaning for Marx. But i think, in this case it holds. people no longer think of objects as independent of people, as doing things on their own. Consumers today are increasingly curious about who is behind the objects and what that person's intentions and ethics are.

This demand itself gives post-capitalist producers, especially artists, a significant competitive advantage. I beleive there is objective evidence to suggest that:

1. artists are begining to develop a truely non-capitalist mode of production
2. the artists' mode of production taps the above-mentioned, and other competitive advantages
3. these competitive advantages are strong enough that they grant artists leverage to threaten and eventually replace the capitalist mode of production, either through peaceful transition or through violent response to restrictive laws.

Chad does not agree that there is any such evidence, but if there was, then he acknowledges that this is a process through which a revolutionary change could occur.

a quick list of other potential competitive advantages:
- non alienated labor, cooperation can be more efficient than competition.
- less hardwired tendencies for inequality
- fewer externalities (pollution, crime, stress related health problems, etc)
- greater attractiveness for most talented individuals.
-

Towards a Practical Revolution

This document is now available online.

It's a general outline of the theory this blog is designed to explore and develop. My current primary goal is getting the research and supporting evidence for these ideas together to make a more solid argument for this theory.

Here's the basics, if you find this interesting, check out the longer document, and the rest of the blog.

1. The revolution is already beginning, i am not aiming to instigate it, only to describe it and participate in it.

2. The Proletariat is not a revolutionary class. The revolutionary class will be a third class radically different from both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (as the bourgeoisie was radically different from both serfs and nobles) The new class is developing a radically new form of economic relationships.

3. These new economic relationships will prove to be more efficient and are begining to grow a new economic system to rival and replace capitalism.

4. Political action (violent or peaceful) will be a part of this revolution only when the capitalists use state power and force to maintain their obsolete system by attempting to outlaw or inhibit the growing power of it's replacement.

5. The new economy is based on creativity. The revolutionary class is the creative class. Art is the new form of economic relations.

6. This new economy will begin in the growing art/entertainment sector of our economy, but will spread to other sectors as it proves superior to the capitalist form.

7. Live performance (theatre, live music) is the most revolutionary (and will shortly be the most popular and important) art form. If we (artists) can gain control of the live performance section of the entertainment industry, we can kick start the revolution.

Insurgent Summer

I don't want to go in depth about the experiences of this summer. We mounted two local long-run shows simultaneously, took part of one to the Minnesota Fringe Festival, and toured out east for two weeks with the other. Forget the details, here's the conclusions: 1. We learned a lot. 2. I hate being back in Milwaukee. 3. I find myself most motivated by revisiting and refining my theory, rather than continuing to try and apply it.

See, this theory galvanizes me. I drives me to action, very specific and direct of actions. But, it has the same effect on very few other people. This means that either: I'm crazy, my theory has not been stated clearly, or nobody gives a shit about the kind of things that i find absolutely compelling. Of those three possibilities I can only do something about the second, so i'm about to start spending more time improving the theory and stating it more clearly.

To this end, i will be posting no more reviews here for a while. Since getting back to milwaukee, going to shows and galleries has pissed me off more than anything. Not because the art isn't great, but because the audience is so obviously there for reasons other than genuinely appreciating, engaging with, or supporting the art. I'll still go see art, i love it, but i'm done trying to talk about what i see. Instead, i'll be retreating breifly into academic research and using this blog to share the developments of my theory.

You can expect future posts to deal in depth with the following subjects:

First, there's "Paint the Town" itself. This play is a theatrical statement of my theory. The creation of the play, critiques of it, experience touring with it and discussions with audience members afterward have impacted my thoughts on these subjects in many interesting ways.

Second, there's "Towards a Practical Revolution" this is a consise, general and incomplete (though more complete than any other single document) statement of my theory of political revolution through artistic production. I sold copies of this for cheap on tour, spreading the ideas to the east coast. I'm also distributing them to certain people and places locally to try and elicit feedback, communication and development. I'll be putting it up on the insurgent website soon, but it's a bit long for reading off a screen, so if you'd like a hard copy, email: insurgent.ben@gmail.com or call 414 305 9832 and I'll sell you one for $2 (to cover printing costs).

Third, I'm reading Richard Florida's "Flight of the Creative Class" and will be re-reading "The Rise of the Creative Class" taking better notes and thoroughly incorporating his findings into my theory.

Fourth, i'm continuing to have ideas and looking for additional supporting evidence to my many claims and ideas.

In the next six months i hope to get together a much longer, more thorough statement of the theory, with more supporting evidence, works cited, academic analysis of Florida, Marx, Adorno, Daisey and many others whose ideas have contributed to the theory.

I don't know what, if any, art i'll produce during this time. I hope to tour more with Paint the Town.