by Ben Spatz
The Western tradition of art since the enlightement is that it is somehow not useful. When people do useful performances, like peace rallies or strikes, this is not called art. The idea is that art is a reflection or watching of real life, which only effects it through subtle feedback at most.
Many cultures which don't have this idea of art as not-useful still do things which we would call art. They dance and sing and perform and paint and write. Some of them do these things because they believe that there will be a directly accomplished effect. For example, a rain dance will make it rain, or a painting depicting a god will help avoid famine. These things which we would call art are actually forms of magic, being used to influence gods.
We do not believe in gods. But we do believe in large human forces, such as war and poverty and communism and love and racism. These are the equivalents of the old gods. The only difference is that our scientific framework tells us they are in our minds and culture, rather than in the sky or under the ground or in the sea. But the scientific revelation which made us stop believing that Magic can effect the Gods, simultaneously enables us to believe that Art can effect these large human forces. If these forces really exist in our minds and culture, then they can be messed with via performance or books or television, or any medium that interacts with our minds and culture.
There are three relationships between the artistic and the real:
- REFLECTIVE - Art portrays the state of things.
Example: The theatrical audience becomes aware that there is racism.
- INVECTIVE - Art shows how the state of things should change.
Example: The theatrical audience is convinced that there should not be racism.
- EFFECTIVE - Art changes the state of things.
Example: The theatrical audience becomes less racist.
The performer is the mediator between the Audience and its Culture, just as the shaman is the mediator between the Villagers and their Gods. The Culture is in the Audience, but it is not the same as them. Everyone in a society can wish for racism to go away without racism going away. Therefore racism exists on its own and can be thought of as a god. The performance reaches these gods and effects them via the subconscious of the audience. The line between Audience and Actor is therefore really a triangle, because the Audience has two selves: individual (psychological) and collective (cultural). Performances that only appeal to the former are the "psychological" plays that Artaud hates. Performances that directly effect the Culture are called "cruel" because of their immediate and almost physical power.
Of course these distinctions are infinitely blurry. But it is worthwhile to consider what the goals of a given performance are in these terms.