Building Theaters

I just read the latest New York Times article on the "edifice" complex of regional theaters across the country. It's a good article, accurate and due. A worthwhile subject to explore. . . But -- of course but -- is it a journalistic principle never really to get in to the heart of the matter? Is it a journalistic principle, in an article that clearly has a perspective no less, only to skim the surface of what can be seen and quoted?

This is probably galling in all forms but especially galling when it comes to art. . . The author briefly touches on the sense that art and culture are not precisely the same thing. He calls art the "subtext" of culture in a way. This is a fascinating point since it highlights that building temples to culture like the new Guthrie building and others is not the same thing as building art for the community.

But I want to know more. The article makes an interesting economic case for growth and highlights some of the difficulties. But could someone please include in this discussion, what they all think they're doing artistically? Why don't they put the money in to companies instead of buildings? (That's a serious question not a rhetorical question.) What do they see as their place in the community? From reading these articles, you'd think that these theaters are simply and completely about the most comfortable experience for the audience and being an economic driver for the city. At the same time, however, there is this sense, this subtext, that those are simply the arguments that people are making in order to justify and build these buildings. There is something more ephemeral and"artistic" underlying the motivations as well. but what is it? Will someone, out loud, please explain to me what these buildings are supposed to add to the work in such a way that the work will be better, the community will be stronger and the imagination of the American life will grow? i know these people who work at these theaters. They didn't build the Guthrie JUST to have more bars and JUST to make more older patrons comfortable or JUST to make art look really shiney and cool for the city to have a national profile. They BELIEVE in something larger than the building. I'm saying -- what the fuck is it? And what does the building exactly have to do with it? And why don't they do a capital campaign to build a resident company? And why don't they do more new original work? Why aren't they throwing the great new voices of america right up there on their main stage where people are filling the seats just for the experience anyway? Or why aren't they doing bold, unheard-of interpretations of obscure polish plays?

Where people spend their money in this culture is a good indication of what they value. While its nice that so many cities are valuing art enough to build such nice homes for it, does it also mean that the cities value the appearance of art more than the value the art itself? how does this not trickle in the art itself?

if I remember correctly -- Joe Dowling has a great speech about theaters as secular churches. A principle which I basically agree with but, I'm starting to fear, for different reasons. I think the effect of art of the personality and soul is probably akin to the religious experience in that it lifts up and expands the consciousness and the soul, making us all feel more connected yet more humbled, and ultimately more alive, more capable, and more engaged. . . I think that's also what Mr. Dowling believes. . . Except somehow his analogy has been taken quite literally it seems. The state and city leaders heard the beautiful persuasive speech and said -- you know, theataer is like a secular church. "Let's actually build a church." So they built one. On the river. It's a bit awe-inspiring. Like a cathedral. . . But theater isn't like a secular church because it looks like one. It's the effect of the art that is on the stage. Could someone alter their perspective a little and focus a little attention on the stage. Yes, the money goes in the productions. But clearly purpose matters. Thoreau said that Americans have proven that they often hit what they aim for so why not aim higher than simply profit. . . Theater, in many ways, is doing quite well across america today. I really believe it is. . . in all ways except artistic. Alter the aim from comfort, entertainment, and full evenings worth of experience -- like a baseball game -- to blowing the audiences socks off their feet and tickling them mericilessly until they cry out in pleasurable beaten exhaustion. . . What if these moneyed theaters tried to do that? Do you think they could if they tried?

or, are they trying and just haven't told me yet? I mean, I do know these people. If they're keeping it a secret, they're doing an awfully good job of it.

Did I make any sense?