This week Woody discusses why Art in general and Theatre in particular are good ways to change the world.
Hello. We here at By Jove HQ tick most if not all of the appropriate boxes on the questionnaire “So You Think You Might Be An Idealistic Artistic Collective”. We have the vague, constant disappointment with politics; generalised optimism for the future; and a fine selection of -isms which help us build the lens through which we view the world. Also we’re talented and find the work more fun than fun. Basically put: we want to create art and in doing so we’d like to think we have a real stab at improving the world. You see, we’re quite fond of the world but we think there is room for improvement. The great focus of our efforts are, I’m sure you’ve noticed, Feminism and lgbt rights. Also, I personally have Views on religion, on which, although I know some of my colleagues share on personal level, By Jove comments on in its work only in as much as religious structures and language are used by the Patriarchy. The point is we’ve got our work cut out for us tackling these big issues. With that in mind, why make theatre our weapon of choice?
Speaking as me as opposed to a mouthpiece for By Jove, the Art comes emphatically first. I want to create things because it feeds my soul (if I may be permitted to use such a wanky phrase). But, if one is going to create things and put them out in the world with the desire that they be received and absorbed it is morally wrong not to be as aware as one can be of the effects they may have on the unsuspecting public and not to ensure one is putting good into the world. With this as the case, it is helpful to have a checklist, to whit: 1) don’t condemn or allow condemnation of others for things they can’t change; 2) when being sincere don’t be saccharine; 3) when taking the piss do so without cruelty.
The other view one can take (as do some of my colleagues and those whom we hope find our blog interesting) is that the Art and the Activism take equal billing, in the manner of Roman consuls. If one approaches things with this sort of duarchy then one’s checklist will be internal. One will know the sorts of questions one wishes to provoke and the answers one wishes to state in one’s work, inherent to the desire to create Art. It is here that the ‘honey round the cup’ in the post’s title becomes noteworthy.
The phrase comes from Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura; a piece of Latin didactic poetry which I have mentioned elsewhere in the blog. In his work Lucretius wanted to convince the world of the truth and benefits of Epicurean philosophy. Pre-emptively answering his reader why he chose to write 7,400-odd lines of epic poetry rather than a straight essay he says that when a doctor needs to does a child with bitter medicine he will coat the brim of the cup with sweet honey to entice them into doing what is good for them. The idea being that the general public might not willingly read moral philosophy or Activism so one needs to disguise their flavour with things they enjoy like Art to get the benefits of the ideas into them. (I.936-950).
Smear generously onto your Art, and serve immediately.
Such techniques are to be found not only in fringe theatre and ancient poetry. My favourite example of it from pop culture is the 2005 version of King Kong directed by Peter Jackson. I first watched that film because I wanted to see a giant ape fight a dinosaur, and the film gave me that and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The thing which sticks with me and has had me rewatch it since I first saw it the sheer joy heart-breaking beauty of Kong ‘s interactions with Naomi Watts’s character. I enjoyed the thing for which I bought a ticket but I got other, more important and deeper things out of it as well. Or in the words of Kevin Smith (quoted from An Evening with Kevin Smith): “All I can do is make movies the way I wanna make them, the way I wanna see them as entertaining as possible and if I can whip a little bit of message in there that’s more than most cats do. … I’ve got him sitting there whip a little message at him, whip a little moral at him.”
Smith goes on to make the point that if your audience don’t get it that’s a shame but you can’t hammer it at them because that’s when it stops being entertaining. This is why art of whatever medium you like is great for making points and provoking questions. Far more people will happily sit and watch/read/listen to something that has entertainment as a primary goal than something merely making the factual points. Very few people read sociology essays for fun.
More than this, though, putting your thoughts into the world through something creative can, through the rules of whatever medium, make the some points more forcefully. I’ll take the three media already mentioned as examples. In poetry one has permission to use language in unusual ways; imagery and metaphor and simile can make complex or new thoughts real and more readily accessible. Lucretius, for example, is fond of the image of letters making up words. There are a finite number of types of atom as there are finite number of letters in the alphabet, but combining them together in different amounts and variations one can create anything. One tiny change can turn wood into fire (in Latin those words are “lignum” and “ignis” so it is a small change in letters as well). Added to this is the simple fact that rhythm and rhyme help make a thing more memorable and we see poetry as a good way getting a message out there. As anyone who has even glanced at a list of tips on improving one’s writing will know, it is better to show rather than tell. Film and theatre do this very well. Particularly when one considers a lot of the things in the world in need of improvement are how people interact with each other we can see how these forms have an advantage over the essay in spreading truth. With film the audience can only see whatever thing at which the camera has been pointed, making it easier to ensure one’s audience notices the important subtleties in one’s argument. Theatre has the advantage of being live. All it takes is that little bit of willing suspension of disbelief and the audience can see how things affect “real people” in “real time”. This can really drive home the ideas of suffering and its avoidance which make up such large chunks of ethics.
Art alone won’t change the world. Campaigners, fundraisers, drafters of legislation and similar are the ones who make the concrete alterations. That said, they need support, and I think enticing people in with pretty words, spectacular films, and engaging theatre is the way to get them on side. You go and make the world a better place, we’ll focus opinion, form consensus and drum up support. Also we’ll sell tickets.
One hopes you’re well,
yours,
ADWoodward
