Thursday, December 11, 2003

It's December 11th today. Today is my father's birthday. He would have been 63 or 64 years old... I have a hard time remembering ages, let alone birthdays. It's only been the last few years that I've been able to remember my mothers. I've only got one sister who's birthday I can remember, it's four days before mine. My fathers birthday I could always remember though. I think it has to do with the cream puffs.

One of my fathers favorite desserts is the cream puff, I've made them before little whisps of dough made from flour, butter (and how), and egg yolks, baked to a golden hue. Delicious. My father liked to drench them in chocolate pudding, cooked on the stove. For dinner on his birthday we usually had something tasty like meat loaf (I love meat loaf), or tacos, or oyster stew (yes, sounds gross but I do like it too, and my father loved it). For desert we'd always have cream puffs, smothered in chocolate pudding.

Each year growing up the celebration would be different. One year the entire clan would be up with all the kids, it took on a festive quality. Of course there would be fights, but not in the presence of my father, or at least not much. He wouldn't put up with it. The next year it might be him, my mother and myself, and perhaps my sister Debbie and her kids. Now matter what went on, or who was there, we had cream puffs smothered in chocolate pudding.

This year my niece has decided to celebrate her sons birthday today. Why? you may ask, because his birthdays on Christmas. She thought it would be nice to celebrate his birthday a little early so he can differentiate the two holidays. Today seemed like an appriopriate day to do so. I know my father wouldn't have cared. As long as there were cream puffs

Teej

Glad to see you writing again, I was begining to worry. I really like the last post, just thought you should know. As for your view on art, I agree... to a point. Art is subjective, but it is society itself that determines what art is. Art must be within the bounds, or just slightly outside the bounds of what society finds reasonable in order to be considered art. We happen to be lucky, because we live in a larger society that's basis and boundry for art is volumonous, damn near anything goes. There are still bounderies however, and though a small sub-section of society may consider one thing art, society as a greater whole does not. Now consider that with in each subsection of what is art, there are certain rules that apply, music for instance still has a stauch set of rules that are to be followed in every genre and medium. The beautiful thing is; we have so many! That's where the difference lay, two hundred years ago that thought of art being completely and solely subjective wouldn't have had a positive or as influential an impact, because society itself would have limited the artistic endeavors. So while art is subjective, it is only as subjective as the society it occurs in allows, and there are set rules for different sub-cultures of art within a society. Some of these rules are freer than others, but they do exsist.

As for critics, well, the ideal critic isn't just someone who informs society of what is 'good' or 'bad' artistically, but one who informs society about art in general. An information giver, someone who understands the medium and can let the public know as a whole not only what is good and bad about something, but why it's good or bad, and how it compares with others in the same medium. Also how it fits into society as a whole. The criteria for judging such pieces, and the comparison that inevitably is made for such pieces need to be taken from amoungst the same sub-set of artistic medium. You can compare a rock music to classical, but the comparison isn't a fair one for either style of music, it has to be rock to rock, classical to classical. If one understands the sub-set and can make a fair comparison with in the sub-set, then the individuals who partake of that particular sub-set are that much better off for the criticism.

As for intellectuallizing art; to create art intellect helps, but it should not be relied upon for primary motivation, only as a tool to guide. To enjoy art, no intellectualizing is needed, but doesn't always hurt. To understand how art fits into society, intellectuallizing is a must.

So... sorry that this post was so long and dry. I always seem to make an exception to my rule to not posting my beliefs when it comes to art. Don't get me wrong, you had valid points Teej, I'm really glad you replied. As for the real intent of my post the other day... I'll right it tomorrow. I've exhausted all the intellect (or pseudo-intellect if you will) I have for the evening.

Sunday, December 07, 2003

So U.S.T. just closed the first half of thier season tonight with Beaux Stratagem. I went to see this performance, funny play really. It's a play written at the end of the Restoration era about two gentlemen who want nothing more than a woman with deep pockets. While there I'm talking with a fellow audience goer, a guy I know, and some of you who read my blog know. A man who's done theatre hear at U.S.U for about five years playing different parts in different shows. An individual who's acting prowess I have absolutely no respect for. Harsh? Yeah, but it's the truth. He asks me how I'm liking the show, I replied that I was enjoying it, which was true. This doesn't in anyway imply that it was a great show, but nor was it a bad show. It was a show, it was closing night and the actors were tired and had a bit less energy than was probably to be expected, the audience was fairly unresponsive, so it lagged in moments. This is bad in older plays because of the language but that's another story. His reponse to me at my comment was "Uhgggh I don't know. I've seen so much good theatre lately..." Now I said before that I have no respect for this individuals acting, nor do I have any respect for his taste: be it theatre, art, film or music. I almost said something about this, but trying to be a nice guy, I didn't.

Now all of that was a prelude to this: the conversation came up about good and bad actors tonight at a favorite local haunt of mine after the play. Now the covernsation was initially about what makes a good actor and bad actor, and I interjected honesty and sincerity. I through those out because I recently realized what people were talking about when the say you're honest and sincere when acting. I was told this myself in the past and I didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Now this isn't to say I'm good, I don't think I am, but I am apparently honest. That perplexed me, then one day it sort of hit. I came to the realization that in order to be honest as a character on stage, you have to be honest as an actor to yourself off stage, now this does not a good actor make. At least completely, but it might be a crucial ingredient to it.

That brings me back to the fellow at the show. While the show wasn't the best I've seen, it certainly wasn't the worst and the actors appeared to be enjoying themselves and thier roles (honesty) so it wasn't a chore for me to sit through. And for the fellow I was speaking with, I realize now that the reason I don't like his acting or have no respect for it is because he's not honest or sincere on stage.

I may be speaking out of place here, and forgive me if I do. Most of you who know me know I've only ever had one theatre class and it was playwriting, I don't know theory behind alot of this stuff like many of you do, nor do I pretend to even be completely competent at acting, like many of you are. I write this merely as observations that I have had with my limited experience. Now if some one else has something to offer, hell: Teej I respect the hell out of your actingl; Jayc I respect the hell out of your directing; Joel, Erica your some of the most knowledgable playwrights that I know. The rest of you I don't know as well, but I do know you have knowledge and viewpoints, pipe up if you disagree, or agree, or if you have more you want to add.