Quick note-- I'm directing Dante Stack's "Does the Devil Doubt?" early this fall.
check out more info at doubtfuld.blogspot.com!
Expecting
6 years ago
Jul 17, 2007
Jun 15, 2007
Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Preface to Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Gray:"
The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.
This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written.
That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.
No artist has ethical sympathies.
An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.
From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician.
From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type.
All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.
--Oscar Wilde
Feb 23, 2007
Politainment
David Geffen is an entertainer. He is the “G” in Dreamworks SKG, owner of both Geffen Records (John Lennon, Guns ‘n’ Roses, Weezer, &c.) and Geffen Film Company (Beetlejuice, Beavis and Butt-head Do America), and namesake of the Geffen Center at LA’s Museum of Contemporary Art to name a few.
So why is his recent spat with Hillary Clinton making such waves in the political arena?
Entertainment is among the most profitable sectors in America’s service based economy. In the recent explosion of new media entertainment, thousands of bloggers have focused their pages on the political arena, while 24-hour “news” channels fill their hours with not news but political commentary. Millions of dollars change hands every day in the form of subscription fees, advertising revenues, and the salaries of the talking heads.
The stars are colliding. Geffen is now in major support of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. A former talk-show host is President Bush’s press secretary. Voters almost expect a gubernatorial candidate to have acting somewhere on their resume. Nearly every college student would take a bid for the Presidency by comedian John Stewart far more seriously than any of the current players.
Politics has always been considered a service, but over time the service provided has transitioned from carving out a brand new political philosophy (ah, the 18th century!) to endless stump speeches delivered solely to be cut up into sound bites and distributed across the country to become the nation’s evening entertainment.
So here we have it. Americans are more prosperous than ever, able to spend progressively more of their leisure time consuming non-essential services provided by others. Some choose to watch “Reality” TV programming such as “Survivor” or “Fear Factor,” while others partake of MSNBC or Fox News Channel in the spirit of being active participants in the nation’s wellbeing. But I must question whether there is any difference between watching the breakup of a celebrated couple in the tabloids or a bitter partisan exchange between politicians and “experts” on DirecTV channel 360.
Which is worse: to sell voyeurism and self-centered paranoia blatantly as such or to dress these up as “politics,” creating endless conflict for the sake of attracting attention and dividing Americans? Is it more beneficial to take the prescribed dosage of amphetamines to escape reality or consume the bright, shiny, and sweet rat poison wholeheartedly out of service to our fellow man?
So why is his recent spat with Hillary Clinton making such waves in the political arena?
Entertainment is among the most profitable sectors in America’s service based economy. In the recent explosion of new media entertainment, thousands of bloggers have focused their pages on the political arena, while 24-hour “news” channels fill their hours with not news but political commentary. Millions of dollars change hands every day in the form of subscription fees, advertising revenues, and the salaries of the talking heads.
The stars are colliding. Geffen is now in major support of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. A former talk-show host is President Bush’s press secretary. Voters almost expect a gubernatorial candidate to have acting somewhere on their resume. Nearly every college student would take a bid for the Presidency by comedian John Stewart far more seriously than any of the current players.
Politics has always been considered a service, but over time the service provided has transitioned from carving out a brand new political philosophy (ah, the 18th century!) to endless stump speeches delivered solely to be cut up into sound bites and distributed across the country to become the nation’s evening entertainment.
So here we have it. Americans are more prosperous than ever, able to spend progressively more of their leisure time consuming non-essential services provided by others. Some choose to watch “Reality” TV programming such as “Survivor” or “Fear Factor,” while others partake of MSNBC or Fox News Channel in the spirit of being active participants in the nation’s wellbeing. But I must question whether there is any difference between watching the breakup of a celebrated couple in the tabloids or a bitter partisan exchange between politicians and “experts” on DirecTV channel 360.
Which is worse: to sell voyeurism and self-centered paranoia blatantly as such or to dress these up as “politics,” creating endless conflict for the sake of attracting attention and dividing Americans? Is it more beneficial to take the prescribed dosage of amphetamines to escape reality or consume the bright, shiny, and sweet rat poison wholeheartedly out of service to our fellow man?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
