Skip to main content

Never going to be good enough...on 'artists' and being terribly lowbrow.

I've come to the realisation I'm just not...something. You see all the words I want to use to fill in that sentence feel insulting, wrong. I could say 'clever' but clever is relative. I could say 'artistic' or 'high brow' they seem more fitting. But it still feels insulting. What it boils down to in both trying to be a part of the arts and academia is I'm not what people consider 'high brow' enough. I'm a little bit common, a little bit...is this what the cool kids mean by 'basic'? Do the cool kids even say 'basic' anymore?

See this is my problem. I don't like the cool stuff. I don't like the sophisticated stuff. I don't like the artsy stuff that we're supposed to revere.

This becomes a problem when trying to be a part of anything artistic, but also something I encountered in academia as well. You're not an allowed to be a writer/artist of any kind of you don't like the 'right' stuff and you're also not considered intellectual enough either.

To which, I say:



And promptly betrway my lowbrow sensablities.

The longer version starts with: but why is anything we get either enjoyment or inspiration from so very wrong?

And let me float an idea: what you like influences you if you want to write, create your own artistic work in any way (and I mean ANY way if you want to make flower collages for your home or write erotic Supernatural fan fiction you are still being artistic-I'll come back to that) or even just to be valued as a person, what you like isn't a measure of your intellectual or artistic worth, it's a marker of what you like or don't like. It's that simple.

In theatre there's a high degree of snobbery. This isn't news. The people who go to see Mama Mia are looked down on as inferior to the people who go to the Royal Court. But hold on, firstly why can't they go to both? and newsflash people do! And also, frankly Mama Mia has made a lot more people have a damn good night out. And there's nothing wrong with that.



I'm all for the power of art/theatre to change, to protest, to raise issues. I wrote a PhD on theatre and AIDS for goodness sake! And that's not meant as a 'highbrow' or superior brag. I wrote that (damn hard won) PhD because I was and am fiercely passionate about the role theatre and performance had to give voice to people with AIDS, particularly in the early days of the epidemic. I am passionate about how writers, performers used their voice and 'art' to make people listen and fight for change.

But often that isn't enough either. You ask me what to me is the most significant piece of theatre to me, and it will depending on the day you ask me either be Angels in America or Rent. If you're asking me what has shaped my brain, my thoughts on performance, on theatre, the answer is Angels in America. If you ask me what the most emotional, visceral experience in a theatre I have had, it's Rent, hands down.



But that's a) not the answer people want b) the whole story. Those reactions, emotions are product of a 1000 different factors. I found Rent at the right age and the right time, the stars aligned and in terms of emotional memory it's doubtful anything will eclipse that. Angels similarly in an intellectual way, captured my mind at the right moment and spurred me onto something. Both are, if you're pushing me for an artistic dramatic response, etched into my mind and soul. Does it make them faultless works of art? the best theatre ever created? No. I have literally 1000s of words on why they aren't. But they are mine, and they are part of me.

And we can't assume because someone says they don't like x or y supposedly high brow or intellectual thing that they don't understand it, or that they aren't somehow sophisticaed enough. That in itself is an ignorant and snobbish judgement.

And why do we elevate some things as more 'worthy' than others? why are we suddenly better,cleverer people if we chose to spend our time at the angry one woman show, rather than taking in a West End musical? And why are artists 'better' if they make something dark and obtuse that people struggle to understand, rather than something that people can access and enjoy. Shrek the Musical has some excellent life lessons contained in it but of course nobody wants to admit that they'd have a better time there. Don't get me wrong I LOVE the frisson, the intellectual stimulation and the nagging thoughts that follow a really good piece of drama. But I also enjoy being entertained. There's room for both in cultural consumption, so there's room for both in cultural production.



This does extend beyond theatre, I experienced much of it in teaching English Literature, having not had an undergraduate degree in the subject I missed reading most of the 'Canon' as a young adult (partly due to being a History undergrad, so I was busy learning about Wars and Sparrows in China). And although my colleagues couldn't recite the names of key historians and rate their relative worth, I was the ignorant one. As I say it's all relative. Now firstly it's not a revelation that I'm not high brow enough for academia. For a start I genuinely considered re-titling my PhD 'Fuck Foucault, a reflection on why theory isn't the answer to everything'.

But it goes beyond English Literature and Theatre, people are notoriously snobby about what you do or don't like (as a test, be that person who says 'I don't watch Game of Thrones' and see the reaction). Now sometimes people are saying they don't like a thing to be edgy or different. Sometimes they tried it and simply don't like it, sometimes they just haven't gotten around to it yet. But for every Game of Thones they aren't watching there's 10 things that 'everyone' isn't watching that they're passionate about.

And it's those things they're passionate about that will fuel them. Whether in academic, social or artistic pursuits. And they'll be responding to the world, and they things they love in an honest way. There is no point in me for example trying to become the next writer of Game of Thrones because I don't particularly enjoy it, it's not my style, it's not my genre. However if someone wants a spin off from The Good Wife, or if the Supernatural writers want some new demons creating, then I'm your girl. Or you know if Chris Carter wants to give The X Files to someone who actually gets his characters and will do them justice...ahem. Sorry I digress.



All of which brings me to a secondary point. I already write. I already create. I have since I was a kid, I have seriously since my late teens when I (brace yourselves) started writing fanfiction. I still get to call myself an artist. I still get to call myself a creator. And so do all of you out there who make anything for whatever reasons. My fellow fangirls and fanboys who make fan art, who write fanfiction, who make videos. You are all artists. Those of you who make webcomics, or YouTube videos you're artists. If you sing, you dance. You're artists. If you make crafts, draw paint. If you do it for your friends, fellow fans, your family or just for you. If you create you are an artist. Nobody, and I mean nobody gets to tell you that you aren't or to place some hypothetical sliding scale of judgement on whether you're creating 'real' art. Create what you love, for whoever you damn well like.

Basically (and brace yourselves, low brow cultural reference a-coming) think like Elle Woods. The artistic types of the world, the intellectual types of the world may be saying you're just a dumb blonde in  a ridiculous outfit....





But that doesn't mean you aren't good enough. If Elle Woods taught us anything, it's do it your way. And one day may we all meet our Warners and say:




What I'm really saying is that cultural is a broad specturm, art is a broad specturm. And we don't fit into neat little boxes as consumers, so why should we pretend otherwise? and why should we try and perpetuate the idea that the only worthy things, the only 'real' art is some dark obtuse piece of work that nobody but the creator really understands?

And how, where and why you create work also isn't a marker of who you are as a creator. If your family likes your collages, or a small following of fanfic readers LOVES your Wincest fic, you're making something people enjoy. And that that counts. If you enjoy it, that counts. To quote another musical:

"I'd rather be nine people's favourite thing than 100 people's ninth favourite thing"




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Theatre Fangirls (here we go again)

There's some arguments that come around and you think 'really? we're still talking about this?' but also you're not really surprised.

So when it was annoucned Tom Hiddleston was teaming up with Kenneth Brannagh for a production of Hamlet, it was inevitable that the cries of  'Silly fangirls' began. Once again we're confronted with comments that girls 'Only want to see it because he's in it' and 'Aren't interested in the play'.

And because I am a woman, therefore incapable of thinking of him other than in terms of his looks....here he above with a cat looking cute.

But just like Mr H there is both petting a cat, reading a newspaper and looking brooding, I'd like to point out that it's entierly possible to be interested in more than one aspect of a thing at the same time. And secondly I say so what the audience is just there to look at his cheekbones?

I don't have a horse in this race. I think Hiddles is a damn good ac…

Why Elliott & Harper is the company I've been waiting for

I can never resist a good (bad) pun in a title. As the first production from Elliott & Harper opens its doors for previews tonight, it’s worth pausing to think what this new production company means and why indeed we need more like it. Something of a ‘power house’ company formed of Marianne Elliott and Chris Harper. Both coming from the National Theatre- as Director and Producer respectively- there’s a real understanding of both the craft of theatre and the audiences that do- and don’t- come to it there. And theatre made by and produced by theatre people, in the commercial realm. That’s potentially very exciting.








Firstly, the act of two theatre people who really love theatre, really understand theatre both from an audience point of view and an artistic point of view. Secondly, one of the UK’s best directors striking out on her own to make theatre on her own terms. Thirdly, and you bet it’s an important factor, a woman artistic director. It’s all exciting, and has the potential, …

Angels at the National (a reflection before the review)

I had to do a Kushner and give this post a long subtitle.

When I called my PhD thesis "Angels at the National" (I write terrible titles I know) I never thought I'd be able to say it again. Of course, the Gods like to have a laugh at my expense so mere months after I bound the copy, Rufus Norris and Marianne Elliot got together and decided that I clearly hadn't had enough to write about. 


But how does it feel to have the thing that has lived in your head for so long, back, brought to life in front of you? As much as I love the plays, I'm also conditioned to be hyper critical. I know every line (I amazed/freaked out Elliot herself with my ability to know exact quotations on demand). And of course, I have my own expectations about how it should be. How then would it feel to go back? 



At the end of Part 1 I found myself leaning on the railings by the Thames, trying to compose myself and my thoughts enough to move. At the end of Part 2, I'm sure I had forgotten how …