Theatre and Religion continued...

George Hunka's responses to the postings on Theatre Ideas are posted today here.

I respect the time George has taken in his response. I'll begin with the blood and guts of his point, in his final paragraph.

"Audiences will find us, as audiences found the spiritual work of artists like Robert Wilson, Reza Abdoh, Peter Brook and others, so long as we conscientiously develop our craft and think deeply about our own relationships to the world. We reach out to our audience as churches do: by living in the community, by providing it with something they can't get in their own homes, in their movie theaters or at dance clubs, and, yes, by commenting on the world poetically, in newspapers and magazines, as some recent Nobelists are wont to do. Church attendance is dipping as well, but one thing is worth remembering: regardless of the number of people in the pews, the miracle of transubstantiation occurs during the mass whether or not there's anyone there to see it. That's why the theater isn't merely another vocation, nor a play merely another product to be sold."

I agree with, essentially, none of this. For one, I was raised by an Episcopalian priest. Considering the family business I'll say that I do not remotely believe in transubstantiation. Acknowledging that it's being used here as a metaphor, I will say that I don't believe anything transformative happens without anyone there to see it. The idea, to me, that theatre is some sort of higher calling, and not merely another vocation, strikes me as hard to defend. From my experience, being a Priest is a vocation, like any other. So should it be with theatre.

George's statement that our "audience will find us" strikes me as wishful-thinking at best, head-patting at worst. I've seen little evidence that if we just somehow dig into the trenches of theatrical history, improve ourselves, we will earn some audience that is just waiting to be woo'ed. They are not looking for us. We have to got and grab them by the lapels and say "You are missing something special." I'll add that claiming 'they'll find us like they found Peter Brook and Robert Wilson' makes me ask, does George mean the citizens of Germany and France? Because I don't hear Robert Wilson and Peter Brooks being name-dropped outside of, well, discussions like this one, very often. Brooks and Wilson have largely abandoned the United States; I don't want to do the same.

As for this paragraph...

"That theater or any of the arts can be an instrument of metaphysical investigation, though, is quite true, and this metaphysical investigation doesn't necessarily lead to dogma any more than surgery necessarily leads to vivisection. But, in our particular era, this requires the same new forms that Matt and Joshua think they're so assiduously defending. I get the feeling, though, that for both of these writers there is a sense in that a form can be too new, and that Brian is indeed thinking far more imaginatively about the potential of theater than any of us."

I'm honestly not sure what the heck George is talking about, and would love it explained to me. I'm not specifically concerned with the imagination of other artists, because it's largely their own concern what they do with their time and pen. I'm concerned with a theatrical community that is more interested in naval-gazing growing its audience. This attitude is what I find most counterproductive.