I'm gonna keep this brief. There seem to be a lot of opinions about my short absurdist play, ME AND FINE UPSTANDING CITIZEN. People seem to be looking to side with a protagonist in my dramatic oeuvre. I would vote that there is no protagonist. So I have one discussion question that I really, really, really, really want some discussion on folks:
Why do people say and feel one thing, and then do something else?
That's all. I'm like a 4-year-old asking questions. You may also be able to pacify me with a cookie, I will admit.
12 smart alecky remarks:
Because they haven't been to AA. Or they haven't read "The Four Agreements."
Fear. If you analyze any negative, its basis is in fear.
Why does FUC buy the ticket to a play FUC does not wish to see? FUC does not wish to buck organizational standards. FUC wishes to remain neutral because not to do so would have consequences.
We all weigh our decisions based on the amount of fear associated with one side or the other. Do we leave the husband with whom we are dissatisfied? Well ...... that might be the right thing to do, but what negative things will occur when we do so?
Do we tell our boss what we really think? Do we speak out amongst friends and family when a bigoted joke is told? Do we voice an opinion when we realize there will be backlash? Do we tell someone there's a bugger on their end of their nose?
Fear.
if coca cola had insisted that people drink new coke, would they have maintained as big of a market share?
I fear not.
Tony & MoJo took my answers.
Because I like my jobs and there may, or may not be repercussions to commenting either way. Thanks for asking about things on my behalf.
Honestly, you've phrased the discussion a little duplicitously. the FUC doesn't just feel and say one thing. At the very least, he (she?) is feeling two - torn between personal taste in theater and professional fallout. S/he has to weigh which course of action causes (or results in?) the least problems.
In his/her case, it's easier to shell out money (and maybe not see any of the shows, just think about it as a donation that comes with a seat) than it is to make a simple choice that has awkward political fallout.
I'm not disagreeing with the sadness of the situation, I think it sucks, too. Just sayin'.
On FUC, I think she can't take a public stand because that is not UPAF's role and she does not want to give the impression that a personal action is making a statement on behalf of the organization. Not much more to it that that -- she keeps her personal opinion to herself and stays neutral in the public fight. If she was being duplicitous, she never would have mentioned it to you in the first place.
FUC's interest as a corporate arts administrator set him/her against his/her own interest as an appreciator of art.
I imagine this is common for most arts administrator positions given the division of labor (admin v artists) that characterizes much of the corporate non-profit structure in these bigger organizations. The admin side has the power of the purse and always wins, which means it eventually kills the art, and then it lacks a real reason to exist, atrophies and dies.
This is why the structure must be jettisonned. Skylight and the Rep need to be restructured to include artists in staff positions, to run more like smaller companies do, or they will die. Fundraising bundlers staffed entirely by admins like UPAF must die now.
UPAF serves donors who have no personal connection to the art that they're sponsoring. They sponor for PR, for status, for economic stimulus. Fuck these donors. Any donors who have personal connection, who aren't motivated by these things have no need for UPAF, they already know what they like and want to support and can give directly.
That might mean a smaller art scene (but probably only for a little while) but it'll defintely mean a healthier one, based around art and artists, not buildings and appearances.
Conflicting needs. When the point of decision is forced, the deepest and most unconscious need will probably come out the winner.
Every action is informed at its deepest level by "what's in it for me?" It's not the talk that's important. Ultimately it's the actual course of action taken.
FUC spoke two things to you. Hedged bets. It would be interesting to find out exactly which course FUC took. Subscribed? Then it's about image/influence/power. Didn't subscribe? Then it's about money/time/self-interest. What they said to you means little, UNLESS obtaining your approval or attention would have a stake in their image/influence/power. Which you must.
~kelly
"what's in it for me?" can be answered in the long term or the short term.
Less flack in the workplace today is FUC's short term goal. Better art in the community that gives FUC's career a reason to exist is a long term goal. When we continually focus on short term goals, we might step in fewer pot holes, but we're also likely to stumble off a cliff.
Please realize that many donors support arts and cultural organizations in the pure spirit of altruism. While they personally do not have an interest in a particular art form, or in a company's upcoming season, they support or subscribe so that the art form or the company remains an option for those who do have an interest but are unable to offer financial support. This does not represent a political stance on an issue either one way or another.
Irresponsible giving? Perhaps. But is it not better than no giving at all? Go ahead, said it is worse. Keep telling those with money how to spend it. Eventually they'll take the hint and keep it all to themsleves.
Post a Comment