"I got angry when I saw that email, wrote my angry response, deleted it, and then went back and explained to him that that's exactly why I should be making those works," says Peugh.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
What It Takes to Tour Politically-Charged Works to Places Where the Message May Not Be Welcome
"I got angry when I saw that email, wrote my angry response, deleted it, and then went back and explained to him that that's exactly why I should be making those works," says Peugh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Politically-charged work is difficult. In general. Period. TOURING IT? Joshua L. Peugh is an incredible choreographer and I applaud him for challenges audiences that don’t welcome his message. Our political world is so polarized presently. Peugh is doing an incredible thing by touring his work. It’s so important to give art to everyone, even if they didn’t originally want it. If a person who comes to watch his work is angry with him, the audience member must realize they also voluntarily went to watch the artwork. It was their choice. Their openness to something new is better than people just refusing to go proactively. This article tackles the discussion of integrity vs local values in an interesting way. The integrity of the art should always be preserved. However, it’s understandable that sometimes an artist must comply with a request made by a venue in terms of advertising. Venues want people to show up so they can make money. Artists want people to show up to challenge their everyday thoughts.
I admire the responsibility that these artists take on when they perform and tour. Like what Ella said in the comment above, politically-charged work is difficult because sometimes audiences just won’t like the art’s message if it goes against their point of view. But opposition is inevitable. Art is a powerful medium and it is so important for artists to use their power to advance social justice in one way or another. This article reminds me of another article I read yesterday, where it said theater is a great education tool to teach empathy. That is exactly what the directors and performers in this article are doing. They are using their voice, expressing their political opinion in their performance, hopefully to persuade and guide the audience. I also loved the last section about using opposition as opportunity. People have opposite opinions is okay and we should all respect each other. It’s great if the art affected someone so much that it prompted conversations: that’s the first step.
I think that politically charged work (politically charged ANYTHING) is so important, not for the people who agree with the message, but for the people who don't. I think it's sad that people reject messages that are not catered to their beliefs. How do we expect to grow and change as people when we don't have all the facts in front of us? How do we expect to know what we believe in when we haven't heard all sides of the argument first? I will admit that I used to be someone who shunned anyone who had thoughts different from mine, and I have completely changed political views before when finally agreeing to listen to the other side. That's why this work is important. It's not "promoting agendas" or whatever people say, it's an expression of politics through art that is so necessary for everyone to consume. And in the end, if you still are firmly put on your original stance, that is okay because at least now you really know! I really hope we become a world not necessarily where everyone agrees, but where everyone is just willing to listen.
This was SUCH a great article: well-written, well-researched, and inclusive of relevant details and helpful tips for anyone interested in performing and touring politically-charged work. I especially appreciated how the article went through four things that can help make your difficult message effective in a wide range of communities. I thin the last point in particular is something that theatre-makers need to be reminded of more often: Using Opposition as Opportunity. So often we get caught up in what the audience will "like" that we forget that that's not really the point. When we see people leaving our shows, we might get personally offended and even cast them off for "not understanding", maybe. However, if we are talking to people who already believe what we believe, and already are open to different ideas and ways of living, we're just preaching to the choir. I think that the best impact theatre can have on people is to make them question, think, and feel things differently from when they came in. If we can get people to such a place that they have specific opinions about what they've just experienced, we can start a dialogue about what that taps into for them, how the work affected them, and maybe what that means in the larger context. Choosing locations based off of where will spark the most interest and make the most connection, while also seeking out venues where the response might be less approving, is such a courageous and also beautiful challenge to take, and the outcome has the potential to be one of the most rewarding.
I think any type of work that strikes conversation is important. Politically-charged work is important. It's important to speak up about topics that need to be talked about while so many other people insist on ignoring these issues. It's incredibly brave to travel around the world and put on a performance discussing certain topics that the audience may not approve of. In certain countries, that can become a safety issue if not only an issue of bad reviews. I always love to hear about productions that make people uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is good! Uncomfortable means conversation. It's not "pushing an agenda", it's striking a conversation and spreading awareness about what is so wrong about the world and the different societies around the world. It's important to talk about the things that make people uncomfortable to talk about because that is the only way any real work or change is going to be done.
Post a Comment