I recently contributed a small amount of money to a theatre company whose work I like. I had received an email from them asking and I didn't hesitate to give. Oddly, right after their email came in another email from a similar small theatre company came in, also run by people I know and who I think are talented.
And yet. The second company didn't get a dime of my money. Why?
The key difference between the two? Company A -- the lucky ones -- are about making fresh new work. Period. The other company, Company B -- the less fortunate ones -- are also about making new work but they justify each new project in terms of how it is going to make the world a better place, most often by raising awareness and promoting social justice.
It occured to me just now as I hit DELETE without giving it a moment's thought, that I have a serious bias. My bias has grown over the past 25 years as it has seemed that more and more art and in this country is framed in terms of one question I find dangerous:
How is _____________ addressing the ills of society?
I side with Christo on this question. When we demand that artists justify their work as social medicine, they cease to be artists. Art, by definition, must be free of such constraints if it's to be truly transcendant.
What do you think? Too pie in ths sky?
