No Conceit

There really is nothing quite like performing.

This is something I had the opportunity to rediscover just last month. I’d written and directed a solo show that was slated to be performed at Theater IN ASYLUM’s The Others Project, and I was definitely excited about the piece. The form and content of the script were both new for me, and I was itching to see how the piece would translate from the page to performance. It was a solo performance – a play with a significant amount of sound design and overlapping text and voice over interacting with one another in a way that I thought could end up being quite fascinating. The rehearsal process had been a bit cramped, but still I was feeling confident.

That confidence vanished, however, on the day before the performance. That day, while I was working a day shift at my restaurant, I received some relatively heart-stopping news. I had no actor. For reasons beyond the scope of this post, my actor had unfortunately had to bow out of the performance – and now there was nobody to play the part. A solo performance without the performer can sometimes be a bit tricky.

Despite this, I was determined that the piece still be performed, and by the end of that work shift I’d decided that I would just have to act in the piece myself. I was fortunate that I’d written the play myself, as the task of memorizing a twenty minute performance the night beforehand, while still daunting, didn’t seem quite as impossible as it might have otherwise.

That evening came and went with hours that dwindled far too quickly for my liking. I’d managed to almost get a solid hold on the text, but the incorporated text and voiced over sound design were still an issue. I don’t remember how late it was that I finally slept or how early it was I woke from a fitful night of worrying. I do remember that morning recording my voice on my computer and having it sound a bit hollower than I’m accustomed to – something I attributed to a severe lack of sleep. Despite everything, though, by the time I made it to the upstairs space at New York Theatre Workshop where the piece was to be performed I felt as prepared as I could be.

That is, until I stepped in room to go on.

It’s easy to forget what it’s like to be in front of an audience. It had been more than a year and a half since I’d last performed in a show and more than that since I’d had to do any serious form of acting.

It was an intimate space to say the least. The chair from which I performed most of the piece sat mere feet away from the first row of audience members. The seats were just about all filled, and with the thrust configuration of the rows I felt surrounded on all sides.

Then the music started, and I had to perform.

Again, I’d be hard pressed to recount and one specific moment from the performance, there’s no one moment I remember in great detail beyond the one or two seconds of forgotten lines saved by a little circuitous speaking until I could make my way back to something I remembered…

The thing I do remember, though, is the feeling I got as I started speaking that only intensified as the show went forward. It was this feeling – hard to describe, but this is the best I’ve got – this feeling of such simple sympathy or empathy (that might be the word). And by that I mean I felt like I was just talking to another person. The piece already called for making direct contact with the audience, no pretending like they weren’t there, and as we went forward together, the spectators and I (both unsure sometimes about what would be coming next) I remembered what it is I love about theatre.

We talk a lot in the theatre about the closeness between audience and spectator – often in discussions about what makes theatre relevant in a world saturated by television and film. Most of the time it’s nothing more than lip service, because while yes, obviously theatre is a live event, it is much more common to see theatres and plays working in spite of this fact rather than embracing the closeness. The proscenium itself seems an effort to ignore the theatricality of theatre – we watch through a rectangle at a performance happening in essentially one dimension.

This night, though, I realized something that I feel may be essential, at least to the way I want to make theatre personally. I realized (or, as I’ve said before, perhaps simply remembered) that the closeness inherent in theatre, the liveliness – it is more than just a fact of theatre – it is THE fact of theatre. The most important thing. And this thought itself is not revolutionary by any stretch. But what it means for me, at least at this point, is something very specific.

I want to embrace theatre that never forgets that it is theatre. I want to create performances that never forget the part an audience plays in making the performance whole. That performance at The Others Project – that’s what I want. I want that closeness. It may be frightening and it may be challenging and it may be outside of just about everybody’s comfort zone, but that’s what I want. Maybe it lies in solo performances that are spoken just to an audience, maybe it comes from shows like Three Pianos (which was at New York Theatre Workshop) where there’s a show, but there’s also a blatant awareness and inclusion of the audience. The thing I’m relatively sure of is that it doesn’t involve traditional use of proscenium theatres and lighting that fully closes off the audience from the performers.


Hence the title of this post and blog: I want a theatre without conceit. 

Once again, I don’t think this is revolutionary in the theatre world. Not at all. But it is revolutionary for me. And I suppose I have my forced performing experience to thank for it.

NOTE: You may have noticed that the name of this blog has changed. This is to reflect my new purpose with the blog as well as to have a title that actually means something, as opposed to just a fancy word! Thanks for reading.

~Greg

Last Night I Couldn't Sleep

So again it's been over a month since I last posted on this blog. Quick update:

1. Had my show BROKEN premiere at the Strawberry One-Act Festival. The production went quite well, the actors involved did a great job in bringing to life the words and characters that have lived only on pages for over two years. It's an interesting show, and I'm definitely considering continuing work on the piece.



2. Have been in rehearsals for the past month for the show opening at the Emerging Artists Theatre's EATFest 2011. I have a really great cast and have been very fortunate to work with some great equity and non-equity actors on a production with a company I can really get behind - it's great to have technical support, for one thing. The show is really coming along, the script is really nice, written by Jeffrey Neuman, Assisted Living opens with a really fantastic monologue - I'm very excited for people to see this production.

This week we have three rehearsals and then Tech - which is a little daunting, but I've done this before. Just because this is in NYC shouldn't make anything different. It's about being prepared and ready for the process, and I feel that we are.

3. I don't want to say too much about this yet, but I'm working with a new group of people (including some fellow former NYTW interns) on the creation of a launch piece for a new theatre company entitled IN ASYLUM (check out www.theaterinasylum.com - right now there's not much there, but the site will be updated soon to include all sorts of information regarding this piece that will be taking place in early april). The group has produced one production already and is full of really intelligent, driven theatre artists with whom I'm thrilled to be working - it's great to start working with people your own age who share a similar passion for theatre that explores beyond the boundaries of the typical theatrical setting, which endeavors to confront and re-imagine the relationship between actor and audience and the way in which we experience art and live performance. I'll definitely be talking more about this group soon - I plan on pretty thoroughly documenting this experience here. I'm working as a Stage Manger/Assistant Director for the central piece to the even and will be directing a short piece as well. Should be really a lot of fun.


And so that's what's going on right now - also some preliminary thoughts about a possible Shakespeare production (probably Othello) outdoors in a found space - will also talk more about this if it ever seems like it will come to fruition.

.
.
.

Last night I couldn't sleep. I turned off the lights and let my head rest on my pillow at around 1:45 am. Come 6:30am, with the light outside beginning to stream through my windows, I was still awake. I don't really know why, I was tired, even exhausted the whole time and yet I couldn't manage to get away from my constant awareness that I was absolutely and firmly stuck in the land of the not-sleeping.

About a million thoughts flitted through my mind over this time. One of the things that I kept thinking about was this notion of stillness - it was put in my head, humorously, by The Karate Kid (the remake) which I'd watched twice in the past 36 hours. I'd also been reading The Art of Stillness, a book about Tadashi Suzuki and his approach towards revolutionary theatre. Basically, I kept thinking about this notion of internal stillness, of internal openness and/or emptiness that allows you to let go and simply NOT think, just be. It's a central tenant of many martial arts, and it's something every artist should be striving towards as well. The ability to create within yourself a kind of open, receptive emptiness, where nothing inside is forced, where everything is calm, steady, but also active and sure. An openness to all external stimuli - to take in what is occurring without  judgment but also without letting that external world exert any sort of control over you. The actor needs to be open and empty, needs to be a reflective lens that takes in what happens around them and turns it into a calmness that attracts us - that draws us in.

And it reminds me that some of the work I did while in school, work that was very inherently physical in nature, that demanded a lot of my actors, I was doing that work in search of something similar - in search of a way to strip away all of our tricks and force what is essential and inherent in ourselves to be all that we have to rely on. Not pulling from a bag of tricks or putting something upon the characters we create, but instead allowing ourselves to be our characters naturally. Usually I used exhaustion as the method, physical exercise that truly tired us out and exhausted us. And at that point of being exhausted, having us perform, play the role - because when we are short of breath and catching up with ourselves there's no time to create, no time to put something upon ourselves, we have no choice but to be honest and true.

I'm just rambling about this and writing about this because it's been very easy for me, in New York, to turn away from the work I used to cling to - to try and be a 'professional', which for some reason seems to mean someone who doesn't experiment but instead already 'knows' how to do what they do.

And I realize, working with IN ASLYUM, one thing:

I don't know what I'm doing.

I don't 'know' how to create a piece or direct a show. Because there's no one way that will always work - there's always a new circumstance, and there should always be a new way of searching that is dependent upon the piece and the demands the text or circumstances require.

I don't know exactly what I'm doing - and that's a good thing. I should never think I know how to do this job, because once I do I stop growing and I stop learning. I don't want to stop learning.

And so the only thing to do is embrace what I don't know. And get back to the place where I'm still searching.

Catch Up (If You Can)!

So I haven't posted on this in a while, mainly because things have been busier than usual (yes, that is somehow possible). But right now I'm on my day off, which is the greatest thing ever, and I figured I'd go ahead and update this thing.

So.

To surmise what's gone on over the past month or so:

1. I finished up as an intern at NYTW - it was really a great experience, I should probably write more about the people I got to interact with, the casting sessions I was privileged to be a part of (sitting in a room with Roger Rees and Alex Timbers talking about their concept for a play and their opinions on the actors we've just seen - pretty surreal), and the workshops and readings I was lucky enough to help out on. Yes, there's office work, and yes there can be moments that are tedious, and sometimes you may or may not have once fucked up a coffee order and been yelled at by a higher up who was in a bad mood - but the good stuff, the stuff I've mentioned - that's what will stick with me when I think back upon this internship. It was a great experience, and I'm so thrilled to have had the opportunity.

2. On December 11th I had auditions for my play BROKEN which is premiering at the Strawberry One-Act Festival in February. I saw a number of really great actors, and it's quite interesting (almost intimidating, at first) to be the only one in the room, and to be the one running the show. I've done it before, sure, but always at Cornell or in Iowa City - two places I'm pretty comfortable with. Somehow doing it in NYC feels different. In the end I got a great cast, and it should be (fingers crossed) a really successful production.

3. I still work at Island Burgers and Shakes. Yum.

4. There was a massive snowstorm in NYC - you probably hear about it on the news if you don't live here.

5. Unlike in Iowa, the snow from that storm melted!

6. About a week ago we had auditions for Assisted Living, the play I'm directing at Emerging Artists Theatre, and again, it can be bizarre running the show, especially when everybody else around you, including all the actors you're seeing, are considerably older than you are. This production is an Equity Showcase, meaning I was able to see and cast equity actors in the production - a first for me. Emerging Artists (or as I'll refer to it from here on in, EAT) is seeming so far like a great company to be working with - the show opens March 8th and runs through March 20th. As a side note, it is amazing to me how many actors there are out there - there were over a hundred actor submissions for each of the three roles in the production. Crazy. The process of picking which actors you'll see from that bunch, well, it's really a crapshoot. Because resume's seem to tell you precisely zero regarding the actual ability of the actor. People with great experience show up and are really, really just... terrible - while some with very minimal experience blow your socks off. I very much understand why many casting directors keep going with people they've worked with before - they're known commodities, they're safe, and it is very difficult to know what you're going to get from someone you've never seen before.

7. So we cast Assisted Living -with some really talented people, including actors who have been in off-broadway productions. So that's exciting.

8. And yesterday I had rehearsal for the first time (technically second - the first was a readthrough) for BROKEN. It was great to be finally up and directing again - I get manic when I haven't done anything for too long (no, NYTW doesn't count as actually doing theatre. I was around it, but I myself wasn't being particularly creative for the most part). Although I'm pretty much always manic in the rehearsal room - I pace when I talk, when I stage, pretty much all the time really. It's better than sitting, much better. If you're sitting and watching you're also sitting and being disconnected. The actors are up and working, so should you be as the director. It means you might sweat with the actors, you might be working just as hard while you try to figure out what the hell you're doing next and where the actors are going to move - I work spontaneously, see, no preplanned staging here - but that's a good thing. A very good thing.

Which brings me to a question I've had to toss around for a while and now I finally have to face head on. There are certain things, as a director, that you can do with college actors that may not always fly with people who are doing this as their career. Meaning, I've always been a director who puts actors through the ringer - acting takes hard work and physical effort and total dedication. I've always started rehearsals with extensive warm-ups and have interspersed staging with exercises, planned with the unplanned. And this was appropriate - especially when the productions I was working on were ones with strenuous demands on the actors physicality in performance.

I'm not so sure that in the world I'm living in now I can pull out those exercises, run my actors until they have to stop to catch their breath - I'm not sure they'll stand for it. I still believe it to be effective and even necessary - one thing I fully believe in is that a rehearsal process is just as much for the benefit of the actor as person and as an actor going forward as it is preparation for that particular production. But I worry at times that these things can be seen as a gimmick. Grotowski, Viewpoints, Laban, Lecoq, whatever it is - all of these methods and training styles seem to most like a thing to do while still in school. I feel like most actors don't treat their art in the same way a musician or dancer understands you must. The clarinet player trains constantly, I've known musicians who practice their instrument eight hours a day - dancers are constantly in class when they're not in production - actors, however, seem mostly immune to this dedication. And some take acting classes, which are great. But part of being an actor is being taken apart - being ground down so that you can be built back up. The rehearsal process can and should aid in that.

But it is really unlikely that I'll be working like that, at least for the moment. Because I just don't feel like I can - not in this environment. It feels like one would have to found their own company - dedicated to that sort of work - for actors to even entertain the notion of participating fully. This isn't me trying to rage on all actors, hell, as an actor I'd probably have the same reaction if a young director without many qualifications starting trying to run me through the ringer. So there we are.

9. Not to end on a down note - I've also been asked to go an interview to direct a production at the Complete Theatre Company - it would happen in April, which means that if I get it I'll be directing productions in three months back to back to back. Which would be cool - and would be a pretty good start to my directing career in NYC.


That's all for now.

On Wikileaks

Okay, so this isn't at all a post about theatre. Instead, today I'm writing about something you're probably all sick of reading about by now - yes, Wikileaks. But the truth is that what's been happening over the last week is setting some really dangerous precedents for the future, things that I can't help but feel the need to address and talk about, even if it is only on a blog that maybe ten people read.

So by now you all know, unless you've been living under a rock, that the site Wikileaks has been publishing a host of American diplomatic cables ranging from nonclassified to secret/confidential. These cables have mostly depicted the the workings of US diplomats overseas, from simply frank assessments of other nations' leaders to discussions of defense tactics around the Balkans in the case of a Russian offensive. And Wikileaks is releasing these cables slowly, there's still a cache of hundreds of thousands of cables that have not yet been seen that are to be released over the coming days/weeks/months. There's a good timeline of this whole Wikileaks situation HERE.

First of all, I think it is very important for people to understand that there is absolutely nothing illegal about what Wikileaks is doing. The leaking of classified information is illegal, yes, but the receiving and publishing of it is not. See here for further clarification. If the publishing of classified information was itself illegal, the Washington Post would not have been able to publish the Pentagon Papers, or would have been prosecuted for doing so. The breaking of the Watergate scandal would have been far more difficult, and Nixon might never have been impeached.

The truth is this. Wikileaks is now providing us with something that we've as of late been lacking. Oversight. And we've been lacking it because in this 24/7 big business media world in which we live, any notion of true investigative reporting/journalism has been thrown out the window. If Watergate had happened last year instead of thirty-five years ago, we'd never learn about it. There just isn't the mind frame of keeping tabs on the government. In the rush towards patriotism since 9/11 we as a culture and media have abandoned very key notions of what exactly the fourth estate exists for. It isn't simply to inform us of the day to day goings on, although that's certainly one function. In a society where free speech is the expectation and freedoms are supposed to a given, there are startlingly few ways to fully guarantee that those freedoms are truly being protected, that the government we as a people have elected is truly working in the best interest of its constituents. The media as a whole is the entity responsible for ensuring that this is taking place. Why, in third world nations and dictatorships is media the first thing to be restricted? Because a free flow of information is an extreme danger to tyrants and to those abusing their power.


Which brings us back to Wikileaks and today. The media today has no spine, not really. There's no goal of oversight and there's precious little effort made at exposing corruption anywhere throughout either federal or state level government. But Wikileaks is willing to publish the information that other groups and newspapers aren't even willing to search out (disclaimer: Wikileaks also doesn't search out the information, they only act on submissions they get from sources all over the world). They are providing the government itself with a sense of being watched. Which is important. Because without that sense the government will continue to act as if it can do anything and everything. This is not at all a partisan issue, both sides of the aisle engage in these sorts of acts. And I'm also not an idealist or an idiot. I understand that some corruption is going to exist and could even be necessary for the government to run smoothly. But as long as there remains the possibility that this corruption will be uncovered, it will not spread to the point where it becomes dangerous to the American public.Or even smaller things - for instance - the US is pointing out that all these documents are doing is embarrassing the government and the diplomats and making them look bad. And that's certainly happening. But why is that happening? Because American governmental employees were mocking international leaders in DIPLOMATIC CABLES! Would you send an email to your boss describing in very frank terms the physical appearance of your coworkers? Probably not. And so if the US diplomats are being embarrassed by these leaks, maybe shouldn't they also be embarrassed for saying the damn things in the first place? Because that makes sense to me. 


I'm not even going to go in to the smear campaign that's been going on with regards to Julian Assange. It's just important to understand that this whole issue is not about him. It is about our governments inability to handle freedom of speech when it is speech that they find undesirable. 


Edit: To those of you who point out that the cables may cause damage, here's a link for ya. Wikileaks hasn't caused any deaths. 

Long story short, the way Obama and the US/World leaders have responded to this is deplorable, and all it really shows is that they truly fear what Wikileaks might know and what they might reveal to the world.

"You Guys are Masochists"

"You guys are masochists" - Sam Gold speaking to a room full of interns attempting to make a career in the theatre.

So, I found this funny. Sam Gold came and talked to the NYTW interns today - and it was fantastic. Really interesting guy, fascinating career, and it was really informative to hear how he works and how he got to where he is now. But it was this statement I found interesting. He meant it in the sense that to go into theatre is, as well all know, a bit insane. He literally stated that there is no such thing as a directing "Career". Meaning that there's no path, there's barely a way to even support yourself purely based on your work. Only a few people are ever really 'comfortable' when it comes to directing as a profession. But he sees directing/theatre also as something the artist is subsidizing - the artist is sacrificing something for the art, to create it, and it is just as valuable as a monetary subsidy/grant. Interesting stuff. Also talked about media branding and the effect it has on a piece and a director's career. That was realllly interesting stuff.

And just as a quick note, I just got an email asking me to direct a piece at Emerging Artist's Theater for their short play festival in March! Very exciting, this will be an equity showcase, meaning I get to use real equity actors! This should be very fun, and the spring semester is shaping up to be a really busy one. Also got accepted into a workshop program called XPass: Go! With the Exchange Theatre and three other off-broadway theatre companies. There were only five people accepted into the program, and I was one of them, so again, I'm excited.

Yeah - as far as this spring goes, busy might end up being an understatement.

Too Many Actors in this Town

So that was nice - just returned this week from Iowa, where I was visiting the alma matter (who doesn't like saying that?) and some old friends, now I'm back in the city and it feels like there's more going on than ever.

First of all, that whole festival I got my play BROKEN in to? Yeah, well, now I'm actually having to put things together, and there's definitely a lot to do. Put up an audition on Playbill and have been deluged with actor submissions to the point where I can hardly go through them all myself, definitely don't have the time to thoroughly look at all of their headshots, much less give their resumes a detailed look. I can only imagine what it's like when a well known theatre puts up a call - oh wait, I guess I can do more than imagine, seeing as how I'm a casting intern at a well known theatre and have to go through god knows how many actor submissions... good preparation I suppose.

Actually, it has been great prep. I've been able to narrow down what I'm looking for and, having sat in on many an audition at NYTW, am much more prepared to deal with running one myself. I'm excited, I've gotten submissions from actors with some really good credits. And this is a non-paying gig. And most of them won't even get cast in it. That definitely hits home to me how difficult it is to succeed in this business in any capacity, because EVERY production has a massive pool of actors to draw from. Must be intimidating for those actor types.

And as I said, things are getting busier - I have a meeting to discuss a really interesting play with a playwright from Iowa, whom I know through several oddball connections. Before that, though, I am lucky enough to be going to an intern lunch (where all of the NYTW interns get together with a professional in the field to talk with them) where we'll be talking with Sam Gold! For those of you who don't know, he's a director who has worked at places like The Roundabout, Playwright's Horizons, etc... should be awesome.

Got to run to an artistic meeting so have to cut this short. More soon!

On Korea, America, and the Politics of Playwriting

So as by now you almost certainly know, this morning blows were exchanged on the Korean peninsula. In reading the coverage of this event, I happened upon a blog post by Jeff Davis (14 Hours and a World: Shells). He's a friend of mine currently teaching English in South Korea, and he had a particular insight that's really struck a chord with me.

...in America, it's easy to assume conflict is something that happens within a small village in MiddleEast-istan, or a tribal war in Africa.  Either way, neither is much of a threat to the actual safety of Americans going about their lives. 

Here, conflict is real.  It doesn't creep around in whispered words in foreign neighborhoods, it knocks at the front door with coastal shells.  Even as I write this, I wonder if I should feel foolish-
If everyone else is calm, am I worrying for nothing?
Is this only an American's inability to deal with the reality of conflict? 
Or is this shell of Korean bravado just a way of dealing with the fact that their elephant in the room is crazy and armed?

Erich Maria Remarque said (of being on the recieving end of artillery) "...we are in a good humor, because otherwise we should all go to pieces."

The response of adopting a holiday mood is, thus, the only one that makes sense.  If there is danger, or if there isn't, no one benefits from being panicked.  Shells (or worse) may fall on South Korea, but this country understands a reality that Americans (myself included) have yet to fully grasp-
If children begin their martial training at 3 years old
If ALL men of the country must serve in the military
If clear and present danger is understood to be a ridiculous concept (since you always border such danger)

-Then maybe that country won't suffer from the violent inability to handle violence that plagues Americans.  I would remind you here that many in the US on September 12, 2001 (the only time in my lifetime where I've seen an enemy attack MY home soil) were crying out to the government to make the middle east a sea of glass.

There's something here. Why is it that Americans are so incapable of handling danger? Certainly throughout the world there are problems, there are struggles, but we in the United States are truly insulated from most of them. We've never faced threats in the way that they have and currently do in South Korea. In the past one hundred years we've been attacked on our own soil by an outside entity twice (disclaimer: that I can think of). The first was Pearl Harbor, which resulted in our entering into the bloodiest conflict in the history of the world. The second was 9-11. Both events were horrible. I still remember where I was when I learned of the twin towers falling. But the truth is that vast portions of the world feel that threat of violence on a daily basis.

In the aftermath of 9-11 there was a void. A moment of silence in which anything could happen. Our perceptions had been radically altered - they haven't been the same since. But that silence was quickly filled, not by unity, but by this remarkable (although understandable) desire for revenge. That notion has continued to spiral, our push for violence and our embracing of prejudice in the post 9-11 world has had some sobering ramifications for our nation at large.

It is the same fear, the same searching for someone to blame; xenophobic sentiment which leads us to find a threat in an Islamic center two blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood, leads to the banning of Sharia Law in Oklahoma (which carries with it some unintended ramifications), and leads to the extreme partisanship that we're now experiencing in the political world.

In some ways I can't help but feel that our sheltered way of life has lead to us sweating the small stuff so much that it blows up in our faces - we as a nation have little to no concept of the bigger picture. There's danger there. When we're more concerned with the personal and political destruction of our leaders than we are with raising standards of living and providing for the populace at large, we've lost sight of what's important. And in many ways it comes from what Jeff is basically saying in his post. We in our world lack context.

So what is there to do?


Since I read Jeff's post (a whole whopping 5 1/2 hours ago) I've been contemplating ways in which this struggle could be theatricalized. And by that, I mean I want to find a way to address our American way of relating to violence on a national scale. Obviously I have no answers, and I've not yet even begun to write a play like this. But thinking about the subject reminds me that such plays already do exist. While it isn't addressing the US specifically, Blasted by Sarah Kane is one of them that sticks out to me. It is a play that, among other things, depicts in a stylized manner how destructive impulses can become when faced with violence from the outside.

I don't actually know how to write about this. I want to, but I don't know how. Because there's so much, there's so much going on and to try and sum up in two hours the truly epic struggle we're confronted with seems impossible, or at least disingenuous. But I still feel the need to try - that's the whole point of theatre, isn't it? Or at least one point. The arts can act as a reflective medium, show us the way we are and what we could eventually become as a society, both positively and negatively. Theatre can and should ask questions and challenge us as individuals to think about the ramifications of our actions, to question constantly and consider what we can do ourselves to enact change.

Basically, we need to grow up. It's common in times of struggle to turn to what's known, to huddle within our groups and become distrustful of the rest. Natural instinct. But dangerous, too.

If this post is a bit long winded and meandering, I apologize. I'll finish it now with this thought:

It is the artist's job to, when confronted with a issue that is truly topical and of vital importance, address the issue in a way that might offer some new perspective, or at least ask the questions that need to be asked. So now, looking at this problem of escalating violence throughout the world and partisanship/fear within our own corner of it, what can we ask?

I really don't know. But it's something to think about.