This is a comment I've heard before. Usually I nod my head, sip my wine, and silently castigate myself for not being someone who invests heavily in the idea of "the political."
But the other day, I put down my wine. "Wait," I said, "is ALL theater really political? What do you mean by that? Because I can think of theater that is telling very small stories, that really deals in the microcosm, in interpersonal relationships, in structures that are, in some sense, timeless or cut across cultures or...."
"No," my friend said, "even that is political."
For me, then, this raises the question of "what do we mean when we say 'POLITICAL'." How are we DEFINING the "Political" that we say all theater/art is? And at what point are we defining it so broadly that it ceases to be a useful term?
Because if we, as artists, are holding ourselves to the mandate that our work be political, and then we point at anything and everything and say "yes, THAT is political," aren't we, in some way, letting ourselves off the hook?
Of course, you can argue that the act of bringing people together in a room to watch a one-time event, the act of sharing your thoughts, hearts, talent with a room of people is a political act. Sure. But I do that when I invite people over for dinner, don't I? Is dinner political? Does it depend on the dinner?
I think we (playwrights of all people) need to be careful when we're defining our terms, especially if we're going to move into action based on those terms. Because I think that the act of sharing art is inherently SOCIAL, that there are lenses other than "political" through which we can view the world and...what...the lines of connection, disconnection, power that run through it? There's religion, there's marxism/economics, there's a cultural materialist view of things...I could throw out a lot of terms here, you know?
All this to say that I don't think all theater is, or need be, political. It does and should bring people together, it does and should make people think about the world and their relationship to it, but while this CAN be a political act, it would be an overstatement to say that it always is.
1 comment:
Ah yes, I believe that I was the friend who claimed that all theater is political, and I stand by this statement. And (to clarify) I said all theater, not all art. And to clarify further I did not mean that all plays are political, certainly many plays are not political in their subject matter, plot, or action. Rather, I believe that the very nature of theatrical performance is political. Historically theater has been the political art form. The theater has been a place for protest, for revolt, for criticism as well as praise, it has been a place for reflection on what is, and suggestions for what could be, and most importantly it has been the art form of the people. It has been a place where the masses could be reached. This, of course, no longer holds true as theater has become more expensive and therefore elitist. But I do not think that this changes the political nature (or, she acquiesces,) shall we say potential, of the live presentation of a story, and communication of an idea, to an audience. Perhaps it is the fact that theater relies on the audience to exist, that every person who steps inside a theater becomes implicit in the creation of the piece (how easily any individual could change or even put an end to any given performance) that makes a theatrical event a political one. Upon entering a theater we have entered into a contract, we have become a small society; for the two hours we are inside those four walls together we are obeying a common set of rules and building something together. We talk about the world of the play, and when we are within that world is it not our governing body and are we not its citizens?
Perhaps this is a broad definition of the political, but as a playwright I think that it is my responsibility to remember that my plays are meant to be presented to a public, and that that public is made up of people who are decision makers, whose everyday lives impact and influence the world that I live in. If I am lucky enough to be given two hours of someone's time I had better recognize their intelligence, their consciousness, and the human capacity to influence and be influenced. I had better recognize that those two hours will elicit some reaction, some idea in each audience member and I would like it to be one that I care about rather than a deep distaste for sitting still for two hours and a pledge to stay home next time.
-Erica Saleh
Post a Comment