"Once upon a time" is overdone.

Once within a space there was a girl who loved to laugh and there was another girl who did love to cry. One may suppose that a love of crying is unnatural. One may suppose that the girl chose to love what all people ought not to love. Perhaps. Never the less one girl laughed and the other would cry. She would cry over the caterpillar who resigned to his cocoon, never to be seen again. She would cry for the setting sun and for the leaves in October. She cried when her grandfather passed away. The other girl would laugh at the butterfly taking flight for the first time wobbly as he was. She would laugh at the sunrise and the trees in spring. She could dress herself and she always imagined that the trees could not, like her, choose their clothing and so nature had played a trick on the trees by clothing them in leaves and the shining sun was in on the whole thing to show their preposterous clothes and embarrass the trees every new morning.

“What a lovely, incomplete story”, you might say. Well thank you. I know it is incomplete I only told you the beginning so that you might write the end. But I’ll tell you what the ending must be and you will decide how to write the ending accordingly. One of these little girls is wrong. Her joy is completely misplaced and this perversion is not to be born. One girl will have none of the other’s persuasion and so she devises a performance that will mock the other girl so that the whole world will ridicule her deviant attitude. Artistic as I am I understand the need for creative liberty and so will allow you to determine who is wrong and who is right.

More often than not, and especially in the case of Dario Fo, one is born at a time not of one’s choosing and in a place not of one’s choosing and in effect thrown into one’s existence as I have thrown you into my narrative which is not of your choosing (ah, the other shoe now drops! You see the point). Life, like the rest of my story, hinges upon the performances which presuppose that one attitude is right and the other is wrong. Dario Fo performed accordingly and we attribute his performance to in some way or another, affecting the social order. This would mean then that “social order” is then only the random throwness (if Heidegger can use that word so can I) of one’s existence leading to one’s conviction that something is right or wrong and to be thus organized in a system of social structure. What causes these performances, better yet, what causes the conviction to perform in such a way and is that cause justified (bringing us to yet another question concerning Justice as ____(fill in the blank) but lets not get carried away)? Does the performance which aims to subvert social order have a sort of self righteousness found upon random circumstances? Would that be right? Doesn’t my question commit the same act of judgment? If I’m looking to leave this cul-de-sac of inquiry what sort of performances ought I, like the girl in my narrative, devise?

At the end of my final blog I want to sign off with a quote from Foucault: "I never wrote things other than fiction, and I am perfectly conscious of it. But I think that it is possible for fiction to operate inside truth."

Is phenomenology passé? I swear this is what I'm thinking during our class and so it's relevant.

Performances are powerful tools for social change and any given performance has the potential to twist the very fabric of our understanding. This does not necessarily mean that performances can change the world; “the world” is any number of different things to any number of different people. For some people “the world” is limited to their perceptions of objects bound in space and time. In that case performance is nothing more than the manipulations of said objects and nothing but perhaps a new manipulation is manifest in performance. However, in such a case one’s understanding of what they know to be “the world” is changed. For others “the world” may be understood as a structure of hierarchy which coordinates or organizes human life according to power, dominance, subjugation, and cyclical patterns of liberation and oppression. To such a perspective a performance would support the structure as a tool for subversion or reification of the status quo. To answer a comment on an earlier blog of mine: The situation within the structure is manipulated perhaps even altered completely, and perhaps there are winners and losers but such a judgment is merely conjecture. Performances are significant not because they create winners and losers but because they frame our understanding of victory and loss. This, however, is not to play down the importance of our understanding as that which constitutes social change.

Aside from the first two perspectives of what “the world” is if we consider attitudes to be stuff of earth then I could very well argue that performances change the world. If the world is nothing more than objects then performances cannot change the world because performance cannot change objects, only our view of them. If the world is a social structure performances cannot change the world only our understanding of those things still bound within the structure. However, if the world is attitude then performances may cause change. This alters my former understanding of social change from a certain system of organization to a state of mind. All a performance must do to change the world is cause a mind to shift from one attitude to another.

A little bit of Foucault repeating

Comedy may very well always act as a catalyst for social change but as the song says it nothing but a little bit of history repeating. Nothing truly new will come of any given performance, the current performance may only replace the traditional performance, but again, this is nothing new. Dario Fo may have done well to use comedy to subvert and dispel cosmic terror as he saw fit and the outcome for many audience members may very well have been a more agreeable and even peaceful perspective of God. However, any such performance is merely the exercise of Fo’s power as performer to challenge the power of the traditional persuasion. The question is posed: does this not constitute social change and has not comedy been the catalyst of that supposed change? Well to both parts of the question I suppose the answer is yes and no. The ocean is both changing and unchanging. Waves keep the form of water evanescent while and tides constantly rise and fall all the while our oceans remain constantly wet and blue our ocean is unchangingly changing.

Fo’s art is another wave in the sea of social history all the while society remains subject to the structure of coercion and power that it has always been subject to. The structure that allows the church to disseminate what Fo called cosmic terror is the same structure that allowed him to perform and perpetuate his comedy. Power, coercion, oppression and liberation, even goodness and evil all constitute the structure that does give opportunity to the church, performers, and any other entity lucky, talented, or aggressive enough to seize that opportunity. Each characteristic of the structure is empty until it is filled with a particular ideology. I think of the structure as a suit of armor empty until someone with ideas and intentions fills that suit and uses that suit as their vehicle or “catalyst” to do things as they would see things done.

At the end of Beverly Long’s article “A Distance Art” she offers Morris Weitz’s reservations concerning a theory of art. Weitz insists art theory is doomed to failure because theory attempts the impossible task of “factually or logically defining” art and any example of art is merely an ephemeral manifestation of a continually progressive genre.

Perhaps he is right. One cannot finally and conclusively identify the boundaries of those examples of expression that we call art, indeed the possibility of what may in time be called art is endless and thus unpredictable. But the word “art” remains and retains meaning; and one would have a tough time convincing me that a thing has meaning to us symbol using creatures without defining, factual, and logically identifiable attributes.

Weitz even admits that he “can list some conditions under which I can apply correctly the concept of art”. Would those applicable concepts not be the substance of a theory of art? Would not the transient nature of art be a principal in the system of ideas that constitute a theory of art? One may say that any concept or another is impossible to define but as soon as they give reason for their assertion have they not contradicted themselves? Art is indefinable because art is [by definition] transitory. God is ineffable and utterly magnificent. You don’t know me I’m unique (just like that other guy). You shut up when you’re talking to me!! (ok that last one doesn’t actually apply, it’s just funny).

Art theory is absolutely not absolute because art is certainly never certain. My position is able to be closed because it does not fall in the parameters of that which constitutes art, parameters which exist not at all (because art is after all open). Furthermore, a description of art does not count even as art theory, which is a task “doomed to failure”, and to develop art theory is just silly. My point is not contrary to Morris Weitz’s, I’ve only said it another way.

Week 2 & 3 Discussion Questions

Socrates accused Rhapsodes of the same fault as Sophists. Neither profession took care for the greatest improvement of the soul as did Socrates, rather, above all other things the Rhapsodes and Sophists considered their own fame and fortune. Socrates would accuse them of peddling the indulgence of their curiosities by the knack of their ingenuities. According to Socrates these professionals would pontificate upon the meaning of Homeric epics with not a thought for virtue or wisdom. In effect they told lies. To Socrates the act of self indulgence where there ought to be oracular wisdom was heresy.

The Rhapsodes reified the state but in what Socrates believed to be a misdirection. Performances interpreted, and therein gave meaning to, the Greek’s sacred texts much in the same way as preachers interpret and perform the meaning of holy texts today. Hargis stated, “In a very real sense the Iliad and the Odyssey became the greek “Bible”, which could be quoted book and line and then interpreted as support for the cause under discussion just as the Hebrew-Christian Bible was construed. Some of these interpretations seemed entirely fanciful and even specifically misleading. Anything could be proved by twisting Homer to serve the purpose of the moment.”

Having said that, one must not wonder as to why the Christian church eventually sought to utilize performances as a method of evangelism years later. Initially the church was reluctant to adopt performance style evangelism because the origins of such style came to them from pagan Rome. Apparently the church was slow to imitate that which once oppressed them, but in time they came around. A common occurrence in church history is overreaction to what may be perceived by the church as sin. The Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, the curse of Ham, segregation, and the Salem Witch Trials were not our finest hour. Even presently some church members fly in the face of facts concerning evolution further isolating themselves from science and some in the church support government legislation for the unequal treatment of other human beings based upon their sexual orientation. Such actions are rash. In some cases such action may be in supposed accordance with the words of Jesus “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” However, should one take these words literally then self mutilation is in order, but paradoxically mutilation is in fact frowned upon by the church as well. Moreover, to those who might use the government as the “righteous arm of the Lord” to administer unequal rights - oppression is far from a Christ-like imitation.

Once I step off my soap box and asses the situation dispassionately I may conclude church policy is negotiable and perhaps contrary to the popular notion of church policy as a righteous and unchanging law. Not because the church must navigate a progressive world but because at times the church must apologize for it’s occasional wayward navigation. Hence, if you walk into any given church today you will witness an elaborate performance not unlike the social gatherings of Greece, Rome, and early Europe. Often what is rejected with righteous indignation is soon exploited for righteous sanctification. Socrates cursed the Rhetoricians of his day while he was chief among them. At least Paul would admit his desperate position “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.”