conventionally yours....

Dear Sam,

Seems to me that part of the point of good theatre/good art (the kind I like anyway) is to reveal the conventionality of the conventions we are locked within. I guess that makes them "transparent"/ That's why I like art that focuses on the outside, the form. Formalism, I suppose. Once we start seeing the artificiality, the constructed-ness of our behavior/institutions/societies, we gain the power to change them, right? What Brecht was saying & stealing: defamiliarization; alienation.

So, right: We're all inside the convention. Only I'm not so sure about the really good actors. Some of those folks you mention were, I think, superbly aware of their falseness. It did occur to them. They consciously created their image/style/convention and then made us believe it because it rang true. For me, some of that stuff still rings true, even outside the historical context. Of course, I guess you'd say "ringing true" might be an indication of how just far inside the convention one is. But real art is inside/outside, right? Conscious & unconscious at the same time.

Did I tell you this already? I watched part of a ridiculously "violent" Charles Bronson movie the other night, then watched a bit of "Singing in the Rain" (including the title number). They were both fabulously conventional and contrived. Terrifically entertaining as pure form (I think I prefered Bronson).

My student Ben Pounds pointed out awhile back the interesting fact that we (some of us?) related more completely to cartoon characters than "realistic" characters.

All connected, right?

And where does that stupid New Yorker cover fit into all this?

Graham