An archaeological dig into theatrical past

1990 doesn't seem like that long ago. I can remember that far back.

Twenty-five years ago seems like forever. I can't remember what I was doing twenty-five years ago.

I'm working on a book about the history of independent theater in the Triangle of NC, roughly titled "Like Mushrooms on a Log: 25 Years of Independent Theater in the Triangle, NC" (catchy, huh (Don't answer that. I said "roughly.")). I've bracketed my research from 1990 to 2015, for numerous reasons which I'll illuminate later. As with most research of historical incidents, nothing stays that neat.

I'm going to blog about interesting things I find along the way: tidbits about the area, things I don't know actually fit into the book but I don't want to lose, insights and questions I have about myself that arise. Maybe even one day I'll publish actual portions of the writing here. I just need another place to get stuff out of my head.

But back to 25 years. I do remember 1990. It wasn't long before I myself got started into the theater scene. But going back, trying to immerse myself in what is now very murky waters, is simultaneously depleting and energizing. There's a puzzle to piece together, which I love; there are people who are still around--many still working--who were there then, but many others who aren't. Or, worse yet, it'll be a major archaeological dig to find information: tracking down leads to only find a 2-year old piece of pottery that was made to look like an old dinosaur bone.

Good thing I enjoy hunting. (see also: my 10 years experience as a propsmaster in Triangle Theater. A separate but equally as entertaining book yet to be written.)

Comments

High Art vs Low Art

“The masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator.” - -The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin, 1936 Is there any more contentious question in the art world than the concept of “high” versus “low” I like venn diagrams. And shouldn't art really be in the middle? art? Who gets to judge? What are the parameters in which to judge? There is no standard definition for either concept and personal explanations range from simple to incredibly complex. One common theory about how to explain the difference is high art is “popular” and low art is “unpopular”, that is, appealing (or not) to many people. This also links to another version of the difference: that high art fosters the widest connection between people while a smaller subsection enjoys low art. This is in direct contradiction, though, to the idea of low art being part of mass culture (raising yet another question of “is art culture” or merely a com...

Pass the Collection Plate, Please.

Various sizes of buildings, with some sort of seating arranged in rows, facing a slightly raised platform. may have curtains around the platform. people --primarily men-- take the platform to orate to the audience seated before them. A plea for donations is made at some point, either before or after the show, which may have music and will definitely have directives masked as stories on how to be a human in this day-and-age. children will be seen, maybe, but definitely not heard. the men in charge will believe they have been given a special gift for leading this particular group of people. and the people, for whatever reason, will also believe this. and this group of people will believe that their building and person and each other are completely different and somehow better than all the other exact same groups around their town/city/county/state/nation. If theater wants to be treated as church and church as theater, then both are getting exactly what they have been setting up for the p...

Death & The Theater

I was listening to a recent episode of the Tim Ferris podcast and the guest, happiness scholar Arthur C. Brooks, was discussing death meditations. And the little lightbulb in my brain turned on with the thought, "We need to talk more about death in theaters." I know, I know, that seems like an illogical statement because it feels like we're always talking about the death of theater. This whole summer has been filled with articles and op-eds from across the country about how large regional theaters are dying in major cities. But that's not the kind of death Brooks was talking about, and in reality, it isn't death these articles are complaining about, either: they are trying to stay alive in a “E’s just resting” fashion, to find some kind of life-support for the theaters, to keep them going, receive new money from new audiences or donors, new shows, new gimmicks to draw more or different people in the door. Anything to keep from dying. We don't talk about death...

Perpetually Curious

Search This Blog