I realized today that I do theatre because I quest for Truth. It's not that dogmatic stuff that fundies snobbishly label "absolute truth," nor is it a relativized, "whatever-you-believe-is-fine-for-you" postmodern brand of truth--and it's certainly not the kind of martial, menacing truth that political opponents are flinging in each other's faces this time of year. The kind of truth that I am after is the truth of me being more me than I've ever been before, of mining things that are Real But May Not Have Existed Before I Found Them. Does anyone other than the actor understand this kind of truth? I don't know. Call me elitist, but we are elite. We are a priesthood. The material we mediate? I liken it to a rare, shy flower that refuses to bloom if you look at it directly. Fragile and pink-skinned, you can see the fluids pulsating just beneath its veiny, paper-thin petals. . . breath the wrong way and it will turn in on itself and wilt.
This is my response:
I am very skeptical and semi-sympathetic. Yes, artists quest for truth. And yes, they feel like the truth they search for is unappreciated and misunderstood. But, it is completely arrogant (which is different from being elitist) to say that one is "mining things that are Real But May Not Have Existed Before I Found Them." Artists do NOT create ex nihilo (even if they emphasize the mining over creating). Artists are not God. They cannot find something if it didn't exist before. That statement is ridiculous and it is using the typical artsy rhetoric of "let me impress people with 'deep' philosophizing (and spell words the British way) even though I am not actually thinking about what I may be saying."
And yes, actors are priests. So are bakers. So are doctors. We are a common priesthood of believers. God does not view artists any more highly than a cashier. Why? Because we are all working with what he has given us. Artists are copy-cats of God--there can be no artistic pride in that since un-originality is the feared enemy of art. The pride of an artist ought to be in his/her ability to see something the way God has already seen it and already created it and then sharing that with others who were not aware of that particular perspective. Thus, the material of artists is not that which is "real but which has not existed before I found them," but rather their material is that which is real but which limited humans did not know existed until God revealed it to them through their art. Art is simultaneously a means of discovery and a means of communicating a discovery. Even in the theater, you cannot say that you are on a quest for a truth which has not yet existed, because all that is truth already exists, whether an actor discovers it on the stage or not.
Furthermore, to liken what this person calls their material to a shy flower is 1) A bad analogy because a flower that refuses to bloom is closed and a closed flower is more sturdy than an open one. And truth is not fragile. It is steely strong. 2) Theater, and art in general, is not about delicately sustaining a fragile flower and hoping that if you stand still, hold your breath, and stare at it really hard it will open itself up to you. Art is about getting a sledgehammer and beating through our dense heads, sinful nature, calloused hearts, sealed eyes and trying to find layer after layer of delicate, profound, harsh, etc. truths. Kafka says, it is the ax the breaks the frozen sea within us. Now, sometimes this sledgehammer might need to work through nuances of language, a gentle scene on the stage or a silent rest in a song, but it must have an impact. Art is not about doing nothing (not breathing, not moving too fast, not speaking). Art is proactive! It is about trying to pry open that flower petal by petal and seeing what is hiding inside. And the flower only humors an artist if its creator gives it permission to allow its petals to be peeled back. But when the artist becomes privy to what is inside, it is the greatest privilege. And that is why I want to make art.
3 comments:
The Bible is full of repeated truths. What for? And why should I listen to a sermon on a passage or topic I've heard countless times before? I'm only 22 years old; just wait until I'm 60 (God willing). Will I continue immersing myself in the Word only in the hopes of finding ever finer nuances? No, I need to hear and consider these truths over and over again because I'm stupid and willfully forgetful.
This is why, though art has pretty well covered all the big issues by this point, its value persists.
On a side note, the actor is an interesting sort of artist. He/she interprets a piece of art and conveys it to an audience—almost an artist/critic hybrid. (The same goes for a classical musician.) There must be some great essays on that. Wish I knew of one.
I'm not a fan of the idea in that quote that it is impossible to capture or measure truth the shy flower that refuses to bloom if you "look directly at it."
It almost sounds like a quantum physics argument for artistic representations of truth.
Nice response, though.
I do wonder if he's referencing the discovery of his individuality and how God might utilize it, rather than never-before-seen theological insight. Also, perhaps, the delicate flower represents the objective truth in exegesis for which we strive, yet often destroy with our own presuppositions or bias.
Also, I thought of this quote from Thomas Howard, Elisabeth Elliot's brother:
"Christianity proclaimed not a retreat from real, historic, human existence and experience, but rather the redemption and glorification of that existence and experience. The very foundations of Christianity are the doctrines of creation and incarnation. It is inevitable that Christianity should robustly celebrate human flesh, created in the image of God, made the inhabitation of the incarnate God, and redeemed for the vision of God at last. The human imagination, reflecting on this picture of things, was roused to shape and express its vision in visual, musical, narrative and dramatic forms."
Post a Comment