7

Atlanta Theatre … or, Summer Recipes for Cooking People You Don't Like

Written By Jeremy Abernathy on July 20, 2009 in COLUMNS, Events

Titus Photo by Jen

No, this isn't Sweeney Todd. It's Titus Andronicus at Georgia Shakespeare. Photo by Jennifer Hofstetter.

Allow me for a moment to venture outside the visual arts. I was surprised to read a quote by Sean Daniels, cofounder and former artistic director of Dad’s Garage Theatre, in Creative Loafing last month:

The NBA does an incredible job of marketing its players, not its team, something we do the opposite of in theater. … Is either more or less spectacular, given the odds of failure?

Theatre is by nature collaborative. Visual art, on the other hand, centers on individuals who are encouraged to compete. Sharing doesn’t come easily, and the market can be ruthless, especially at a time when collectors are shy, or are reluctant to even leave home. Why, then, do we all strive for stardom, to become the next Damien Hirst or the next Shepard Fairey? There might be something to learn from the performing arts.

Although I’ve met several local actors, stage managers, and the like, the performing arts still seem distant and closed off. Then again, whenever I bring new people to galleries, I always find myself fighting against the common perception that Art is exclusive and obscure. So, I wonder: What’s happening in Atlanta’s theatre scene?

In the meantime I plan to check out Georgia Shakespeare Festival’s production of Titus Andronicus, a weirdly compelling play where “[b]odies are chopped and baked into meat pies.” (A motif that, aside from the musical starring Johnny Depp, was most likely inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses.) The ticket might seem a little steep—between $15 and $45, depending on the seat—but past experience tells me to expect a good show. Any other suggestions?

Georgia Shakespeare is a repertory theatre; several plays are shown in a continual rotation, so it’s best to check the show calendar before you buy tickets. August 2 is the final performance of Titus Andronicus and the conclusion of Georgia Shakespeare’s summer season.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Category: COLUMNS, Events |
Tags: , , , , , ,

  • http://www.ktauches.com ktauches

    you know, I think you are on to something here jeremy. . .that in art we promote individuals and not groups . . .and in theatre (not the star system in film, where there’s power and fame to be had), the group works together to make a show. hmmm. rather quaint by hollywood standards.

    but of course, we also know that in groups there become power struggles and artistic compromises. . .perhaps visual artists are more inclined toward strong individual thinking and expression. (that’s not to say they shouldn’t socialize and gang up together in their locales of choice, as well as compete joyfully.)

    you say that “Art is exclusive and obscure.” I guess that’s as opposed to local music and theatre which are both geared toward lighthearted fun and entertainment. . .?? (certainly there is more avant-garde music and theatre out there, but how much of that happens here, especially now that eyedrum’s a bust?)

    “Art is exclusive and obscure” –I feel that too sometimes. but then I also really depend on art to provide a solace for more refined visuals and communication than the mainstream offers. art can provide intellectual stimulation, as well. and that’s a fine tradition, even if it alienates those used to more populace events. (wish that wouldn’t happen so much :)

    art having a rep as being exclusive may have something to do with is being a minority concern as well as a minority aesthetic, with expensive tendencies. (those with privilege tend to be the ones with the freedom to indulge in it). but ultimately art does not need to be about money. . .it’s a matter of style, motivation, expression and fearlessness. -kt

  • Jeremy Abernathy

    On “exclusive and obscure.”

    Yes, I had the music scene in mind when I wrote that; compared to pop music, the general public seems to know very little about visual art. In some cases, they even treat it like a scam — as if Art was a kind of high-class voodoo that only yuppies, hipsters, or pseudo-intellectuals can fool themselves into.

    It’s easier to ask people to come out to music, where it’s clear that something’s “going to happen.” I think it’s that lack of a clear program that can make an art show confusing. (“So, what are we supposed to do here?”) Plus — like you say — music has a strongly established mass appeal, unlike art or live theatre.

    “Expensive tendencies” are another issue.

    I’ve had very strong reactions against galleries before, when it felt “too rich for my blood.” I’ve observed other people have the same reaction, too, but I thought, “Oh, come on, no one’s asking you to buy anything! Give it a chance?”

    (It’s the environment. Or, if you want to be theoretical about it, it’s the cultural signifiers — the clothes, architecture, nice framing, the cleanliness of it all, the “inside voices,” etc. Subtle perceptions tend to make or break someone’s evaluation of “… Do I belong here?” And sometimes it just takes talking to a stranger to change your mind.

    One of my favorite art people made my day once, when she wore a t-shirt, cutoff shorts, and flip-flops … to Fay Gold Gallery. It was delightfully white trash.)

    These days, though, I make a conscious effort to consider the art first, and the people second.

    I was hoping the theatre analogy would add new terms to the conversation about art. (Much like that way Daniels’ quote about the NBA introduced a sports analogy to a conversation about theatre.) For example, I think visual artists can identify with theatre as an art that’s produced locally, to be experienced by a local public.

    But unlike art shows, and most concerts by local bands, theatre tickets tend to be more expensive. I wonder if that was something that turns our readership off …?

    Again, I’m speaking a bit outside my specialty, here. You’re certainly invited to correct my ignorance.

    AND — “Art can provide intellectual stimulation.” Yes! A touché there, Ms. Tauches.

    The “lack of a clear program” I mentioned above can be a good thing. Of course, it doesn’t have to be intellectual conversation. I mean, you could talk about zombies — or even Doctor Who — if you wanted, but … at least you can hear people talk! (Unlike at a concert, or during the middle of a performance, etc.)

  • http://fischundmeeresfruechte.blogland.com.au/ danielle a. waring

    I have many problems with my browser AtomNet on your web site. The monkeys are still in the system :) .

  • http://www.szczudlarze.info teatry uliczne

    Jamorama i think you have a great site here… today was my first time coming here.. i just happened to find it doing a google search. anyway, great post.. i’ll be bookmarking this page for sure.

  • Joel

    Art as “high-class voodoo.” I love that.

  • Jerry Cullum

    The artist collaborative has in recent years been, of course, the cool/hip/trendy/use-your-generationally-appropriate-adjective Thing To Be, which means it is probably on its way out in terms of the global biennials. (I am so tired of the plus sign in lieu of the ampersand, myself, that I proposed using the minus sign to link the names in one of my current collaborations.)

    But suddenly collaboration is the fact of the moment in Atlanta, as I realized when I counted the number of new and old collaboratives with which I am currently involved or in which I am a formal member.

    Too bad I’m on Fahamu’s show and then going to Whitney and Micah’s opening instead of checking out the Raw Space Gallery thingie. (Note that the show after this at Whitespace is also…a collaboration.)

  • Jerry Cullum

    By the way, the advantage of listing recent comments is that older posts like this one get thrust back into the dialogue.