Utility — Struts and Frets: Kris Joseph

Utility

May 11, 2010 · 16 comments

Sterling Lynch wrote a guest post over at Unfolding on the topic of arts versus arts marketing. For me, one of the things that stood out in his post is his suggestion that a shared focus on the goal of exhibiting art aligns the efforts of artists and arts marketers.

The notion of “focus”, and the idea that his post might be seen as “fundamental marketing information” in almost any other context, got me thinking about something else.  You’re going to have to bear with me, now, as I lead you through some possibly-repulsive material in order to arrive at my point.

Much of the modern theatre world is slow to pick up on things (like the basics of marketing, for example… but I digress). Included among those things is the embrace of modern communications tools (I refuse to say “social media”, even though I’m now going to use Twitter as my primary example.. but I digress again).

When I talk to theatre friends and other artists about why they don’t use services like Twitter, I get a spectrum of familiar responses: I just don’t see the point; it’s so banal; nobody says anything interesting; etc.  Those of us who have worked successfully with a tool like Twitter grin-and-bear these responses because we understand that Twitter is not a destination; its value is intrinsic in its definition as a tool.  It is a merely a means to an end.

The “ends” or goals I set for my use of Twitter are aligned with my goals for living a well-rounded life: use it to meet people who share my interests; find out about interests I didn’t know I had; keep on top of discussions that interest people, and participate in those discussions as best I can.  Small successes lie in using Twitter to connect with people I would not have otherwise met. Massive successes lie in using those connections to facilitate real-life interactions, where I get to be in the same physical space as the person I met online, talking or playing or creating or debating or volunteering or working.

When I line up my “Twitter goals” alongside my goals as an artist, I can’t help but notice an alarming similarity.  Which brings me to another parallel thought, and my point: theatre is also just a tool.

I’m oversimplifying, now, but let me lay this out as basically as I can.  Just as people who are frustrated or bored with Twitter get that way because they use Twitter just for Twitter’s sake, people who are frustrated or bored with theatre get that way because they use theatre just for theatre’s sake.  In order for the form to be useful, it must not be the end, but the means to the end.  To ignore the notion that theatre must exist to effect something is to bolster the claims of many people who don’t go to the theatre, when asked why they don’t go to the theatre: I just don’t see the point; it’s so banal; nobody says anything interesting; etc.

I’ve been reading a great deal of depressing commentary on the nature and utility of art (for a meaty and supremely filling meal of such commentary, check out the most recent Lapham’s Quarterly).  One of the most common ideas that has come up in this reading is the feeling that art of all kinds must now be completely commodified in order to “succeed”; it therefore serves no driving societal purpose.  You see it in how the impact of a painting is measured in terms of its monetary value; you see it in a culture that predominantly thinks actors should just act, and stay out of the worlds of commentary and politics.

This is, in many ways, a trap that has been forged for us by the forces that shape our western culture.  But it’s also a trap in which many theatre artists toil blindly, responding by using the medium to “connect” with society — as if that is its intent — instead of using it to mold and guide society.  The symptoms are myriad, evident in everything from the idea that “real” theatre can only take place in a theatre, to the idea that the way to market theatre is to advertise work to existing theatregoers.  Theatre creators all over North America are in the business of building screwdrivers, and have forgotten why people need screwdrivers.

Theatre — like all technology — is just a tool.  This is something we used to know, but seem to have forgotten.  The roots of this amnesia date back decades: in the immortal words of Bertolt Brecht (or was it Mayakovsky?), “art is not a mirror to hold up to society, but a hammer with which to shape it.”

I’m rather pleased with myself for making this observation. My problem now — my crisis — is that I have no idea how to move from seeing the hammer to knowing how to hold it, wield it, and start driving some nails.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • flloydkennedy

    Thanks Kris, once again you hit the mark. Theatre exists for a purpose, to serve society, and it's too important and valuable to be treated as a commodity. This is why I say acting is a craft. The craftsperson makes something useful. If s/he does it really well, it might just possibly qualify as art. I wish I had half your discipline, to find the time to communicate and share more effectively across the various media. Thanks for doing what YOU do so very well.

  • http://twitter.com/SterlingLynch Sterling Lynch

    Great response, Kris! And we are in absolute agreement: theatre is a tool. And this idea informs my post. Clearly, you read between the lines.

    Not-coincidentally, I'm also negotiating what this idea — among others related to it — means for me in practical terms.

    One thought which may help: a hammer is not a hammer until you (or some group of us) have a purpose served by its being a hammer. Pick a purpose — any purpose — and discover what your tool becomes. And as it becomes something you may not have expected, new purposes can also be found. And so on.

  • miklev

    Like this very much as well, and share the same dilemma: where are the signposts? I figure – like actors and marketers – collaboration is the way forward, the belief that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Doesn't wash with those who love metrics, those insufferable scoresheets, but maybe we need those to rethink how the public purse is used to shape arts.

  • http://llheureux.blogspot.com Lisa

    I don't know if I agree. Completely agree, that is. I use tools to make theatre, but theatre is not necessarily a tool. It is an expression, it is at times abstraction. It is the end product that is shaped by tools. Theatre does not exist for a purpose but rather because I could not exist otherwise. It is intrinsic to my very being. It is something that runs deeper. Yes it is craft, but it is also calling.

    I also disagree that it helps shape our western culture. All I see are cultures. Some have common ground, but even within our own country there are countless cultures, voices that present different ways of thinking, of creating. Some artists create for an audience, but for some time, there are collectives and individual artists, even in this city, who no longer create for an audience. To make theatre in terms of an audience is in a sense a trap. And to make it into a tool can also be one.

    Theatre first and foremost is an art. An expression. The hammer, which you talk about is the tools that are put in place throughout the process to distort of view of reality. But the object is the mirror, though shattered and repositioned. But even to do so, I don't need a tool, but simply bare hands that are willing to drop the mirror (to take your image further) and I still end up with shattered glass. The mirror is reality, theatre is the shattered glass, how I choose to shape one to the other, now that is the craft, that is the process.

    And I would say that in theatre, the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts. The whole is the mirror or reality, theatre is the sum of the parts. Theatre will exist with or without the public purse. And it is by forgetting the public that we will be able to create work that is worth remembering, and actually, work that is worth funding because of its innovation. Why would I pay to see a show that is going to simply show me what I know already, in a language that I comprehend. But find that shattered piece of mirror that represents a forgotten part of my being in a shape that is in itself unique. That's what I want to see. That's what I will rush out to give money to. I don't necessarily care if you used a hammer, screwdriver to show me that piece of mirror. What is essential is that piece. Which is not a tool. Does not have a use per say. But that is in and of itself art.

    How this relates to marketing. I don't know. I myself am actually more into the idea that theatre, like art, is wrapping. http://llheureux.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-my-opi…

    That's where I am at. I don't necessarily fully live by this principal. But it is my goal. I now have to start my own work that will reflect this.

  • http://www.krisjoseph.ca/ Kris Joseph

    I have, in my post, conflated the idea of art and theatre. Good theatre is
    art; all art is not theatre. I see your points, Lisa, but don't agree with
    many of them and find them confusing (I think you're a little lost in my
    metaphor, and ultimately we may disagree very little). But I must state
    emphatically that theatre cannot exist for itself; it can only exist for its
    audience. This is what separates it from other forms of art.

    I buy the idea that art can be a simple expression. But not all art is
    theatre, because theatre must be shared with someone, at the time of
    performance, in order to be theatre. Theatre that an artist (or a group of
    artists) creates for himself is NOT “theatre”. It may be therapy, it may be
    self-fulfillment, it may be experimentation, it may be exploration… but it
    isn't theatre. Theatre is real-time, live-and-in-person communication
    between artist and audience. Not between artist and art; not between artist
    and artist. Those other forms of communication are valid and critical to a
    rich life, in all of the ways you've articulated and more — but they're not
    theatre. If I want to express myself through non-theatrical art, I can do
    that without an audience, anywhere, with paint or sound or bodily fluid or
    text whatever medium I choose.

    I didn't write a post about marketing; it was just spurred by a post on
    marketing. I am not suggesting that the “tool” of theatre is to be used to
    put bums in the seats of a theatre. In fact, that's a gross perversion of
    my original intent and I hope that's not what comes across. When you talk
    about compelling theatre being a “theatre that forgets the public”, I assume
    you're talking about theatre that is not populist/commercial, and NOT
    theatre that doesn't give a shit about the people who see it. The former is
    an idea I absolutely stand behind; the latter is an idea that repulses me to
    the point of career change.

    This is why I say you have to want to DO something with theatre if you're
    going to ask people to come and see it. That goal — what purpose you want
    the work to serve — can be as huge as the overthrow of a corrupt
    government, or it can as simple as helping someone else smile at beauty.
    The MINIMUM requirement is engagement. There is no maximum requirement.
    So much of our theatre as stuck in a plague state, where the goal is just
    “to do theatre”. I'd name names (and there are naughty, naughty culprits in
    this town) but I've pissed off enough people here already in the past month.

    Reading between the lines of my post, then, what I have come to loathe is
    theatre that exists for the celebration of or the perpetuation of itself.
    That's not art; it's masturbation. There's a reason that particularly
    indulgent pieces of theatre are referred to as “wank-fests”.

    I recognize that my vision of a vibrant theatre isn't the same as everyone
    else's, and that's okay. What *I* want from theatre — what I want from my
    *life*, aside from my basic needs of food and shelter — is to effect social
    change in a way that is aligned with my values and the values I share with
    those around me. In this way I am much like Stephen Harper, and I can argue
    that what he does in the House of Commons during Question Period is damn
    close to my vision of a vibrant theatre. Your theatre may vary; however, I
    have no qualms suggesting that theatre that chooses to exist for its own
    sake is dead theatre, though, and I can't wait for it to kick the bucket.

    Finally, you've misunderstood my point about theatre shaping culture. I'm
    bemoaning the current state — where theatre does NOTHING to shape our
    reflections on society, culture, and community. When I say “western” as
    part of the phrase “western culture”, I am using code for “capitalist”.
    Theatre USED to shape and guide culture. That was, in fact, its historical
    function (e.g. Greek theatre; miracle and mystery plays). Theatre and
    performance used to exist to drive the engines of societal evolution; now it
    is driven by the needs and demands of the profit motive, and at best
    reflects evolution that has already taken place. For more on this:
    http://www.krisjoseph.ca/2008/12/01/ark-fallout…

  • nadinethornhill

    I long subscribed to the idea that while marketing could serve artistry, they were distinct skill sets best handled by separate sets of people. In retrospect, that attitude was probably some laziness on my part. I didn’t know much about marketing, thus it was easier to say I couldn’t rather than take the time to learn.

    Now I’m learning (and making some shit up as I go) and it’s really not that arduous.

    Yay, Erika!

    This comment was originally posted on Movement

  • http://nadinethornhill.wordpress.com/ Nadine

    Great post and I'm loving this discussion.

    Lisa, you spoke of theatre as an expression. I agree with you, but I would also argue that expression is the act of communicating something to someone. By definition it necessitates an audience. Otherwise, it's reflection. And while I think theatre can facilitate reflection for the artist(s) creating it ultimate I see Kris' point. Without an audience it's not expression. Without an audience it isn't theatre.

    I also don't think the metaphors of the mirror and the hammer are at odds here. I'm extremely familiar with the concept of creating art to hold a mirror up to society. But I've never met an artist who says, ” I'm just holding up this mirror so society can see what they look like. I don't want anything to happen.” It seems the goal in holding up that metaphorical mirror is to show an audience/society something they may not see. And by reflecting on that reflection may be the catalyst for change. This is not to say that an artist can or should dictate the entire process for change. But if a mirror prompts even minor change in one person, then it serves the same purpose as a hammer — shaping the world we live in.

  • Lisa

    I agree, but disagree with you Kris. Theatre is not that different from other arts. I think that is perhaps where you are mistaken. It is very akin to dance, performance art, opera, live music. It also relates to media arts in some instances, visual art, writing. It is in itself an intra-art discipline. I agree that it can used, or rather shaped by a social political medium, but so can any of the other artistic disciplines. Audience is required, I agree, the terms of what is represented by that audience is open to interpretation. I disagree that it can't be between artist and artist, because at one point, one side does become audience (isn't that already what is happening?)

    We both agree that audience is necessarily, but there are two ways of creating. Being shaped by audience or shaping audience. I am reaching a point where I am no longer interested in creating in function of an audience. My need is to create. And I am hoping, that if it is I do my job well as an artist, then the audience that it speaks to will find this work out (and right now my challenge is to find the space and time to actually create that work).

    I guess where I am at in my own career is that I am bored with theatre. Most of what I see is inconsequential. I can count the productions in my adult life that have moved me. And I am growing tired of gimmicks, formulaic approaches to theatre. And the solution that I see if to see it more as an artform than as a tool. I have recently become more interested in contemporary dance. The theatre that I am interested in making is more attuned to that type of expression.

    I am not interested in therapy, but I am interested in form. And I don't know if it is because we are so caught up on audience and by making it of use that we make such bad theatre, but something isn't working. And your post has pushed me to try and formulate this discontent.

    I think we speak of the same thing. I just don't agree with the use of the metaphor. But when you look at the essence, I think that we may indeed want connected things (though even then, I know that our vision of the artform differs as we come from different artistic cultures). I am conscious that theatre serves a purpose, as does art in general. The essence of it is to shed light on what it means to be human. Other than use of words though, and perhaps a dislike of the word utility, I think we are saying the same things with different words and pointing to the fact that there is something inadequate in the way that much of the theatre in this city is created.

    I also have issues with the idea of cultural binaries, western versus oriental. I think that is a restrictive way of viewing the world. And that two is where I am at in my own personal thinking, and what I think is more currency now that has ever been before. Plurality of voices when thinking about culture. What is Western in this culturally diverse landscape. An old idea that we are moving away from.

    One of the last pieces that I saw and that I actually enjoyed was Theatre Replacement's BioBoxes. This show has become a phenomenon in itself. What an idea, if audiences are decreasing, then why not make work for one person. This same principle is applied to hive where performances are for select groups. These pieces are innovative. For me this is interested. Because there is research and exploration. And if you look at the audiences of these happenings, they are flocking to the hive. Selling out the event. Some shows are hit and miss, but when they hit, they hit hard. Modern theatre makers have a responsibility as artists to challenge the artform. The profit motive cuts down time exploring, innovating and reflecting upon the process. Otherwise we have a dead artform. I am not against political theatre. When well done I applaud it.

    I've just come out of three days of intensive and meaningful meetings about the future of art funding and support mechanisms by funding agencies. And in listening to artists and administrators from across the country, it has become clear to me that it is not theatre's role to shape and guide culture, but rather that of the individual and collective of artists. We drive this evolution process, but we do so in collaboration with artists from other disciplines.

    And perhaps what is responsible for the lack of shaping and guiding is a general feeling of contempt that can be felt across our society. How can we create anything of meaning when we have no drive, no urgency to create? When we are willing to pick up the mold and not get our hands dirty?

    Also, this just came to me. And I don't know what to do with it. We live in a society of success. We strive for success. How do we make it work. We are so focused on how to draw in an audience that we completely missed the target. We are so focused on making good profit making art that we forget the art, the basic artistic expression. As an artist, I am conscious of the fact that I will probably have more flops, more mistakes than successes. So why can't I just create. Give voice to what I am driven to create. Back in the 1990s, a group of Montreal theatre artists decided to make a show that was a flop. This was their intent. I think it might have been called the flop. They took everything that makes bad theatre and combined it in a show. Scheduled it at the worst possible time (during xmas) and wanted to see how it would be received. It was a success. There is no formula, no mold worth using.

    Anyways, that is a side note. I'll stop now using your blog as a platform to try to formulate my thoughts on this artform.

  • http://www.krisjoseph.ca/ Kris Joseph

    Lisa, I love your discussion — don't stop. But you COMPLETELY proved my
    ENTIRE point with this statement: “it has become clear to me that it is not
    theatre's role to shape and guide culture, but rather that of the individual
    and collective of artists”. In other words — theatre is just a tool. I
    rest my case.

  • Lisa

    No. The artist is the tool. In other words. Kris, you are the tool. You're a tool. Well. Yes. But not that kind of tool ;) You are the instrument that shapes theatre.
    Agh…. I give up ;)

  • sterlinglynch

    You aren’t alone on this front. I thought the same thing for a long time as well. I think it was aggravated by my time spent as an arts student at WLU which has a fairly prestigious business school. Both biz-nobs and arts-wieners worked hard to imagine a hard line between the two worlds. It was only after I sat down and studied a bunch of marketing on my own that I realized that the dichotomy was false.

    Any artist who has the ability to imagine, create, and share a work of art has the ability to conceive, devise, and execute a marketing plan. It’s really only a question of whether or not s/he is willing to do it.

    This comment was originally posted on Movement

Previous post:

Next post: