Secrets of the City

I went into Bahan’s piece with an open mind (I’m not big on local theater, so I had no feelings either way), but in the end it just came off like a PR flak complaining about coverage; she wants MORE coverage of the financial fuck ups at Jeune Lune, but complains when the Strib writes about Joe Dowling’s exorbitant salary. You can’t have it both ways, Melodie.

I think Melodie has a point when it comes to the flagging quality of sophisticated criticism; and not just here, but everywhere. But I think the answer to this problem isn’t concentrating on a “theater beat”–and the fact that she didn’t cooperate with the Strib story on Dowling’s salary, as Peck notes, belies her suggestion anyway.

Actually, I think her concern speaks to the paper’s largest problem (and one that Peck seems to be aware of): its mission to appeal to such a gigantic readership. The perceived necessity to appeal to such a vast audience–everybody–and its editorial insistence on a certain formula to achieve that mission, doesn’t really even leave the paper with an option to go middlebrow.

I suspect Melodie wasn’t talking about investigative stories about the salaries of theater professionals when she was talking about arts journalism, although that’s a necessity.

There is almost no writing in the daily papers about the process of making theater, very few profiles of theater people (particularly those in the smaller theater scene). The Jeune Lune’s finances were not a good example — they didn’t want to talk about it, if I recall correctly, and if you are going to do stories about financial trouble at a theater, where do you stop? They’re almost all in trouble.

But I agree with her that some of what passes for theater criticism in this town is hastily written, pro forma, and sometimes terrible, and Peck didn’t seem to have much of an answer for that.

I’d be happy if the lack of in-depth arts coverage in this town began and ended with theater criticism. But it don’t. Not enough perceived ROI for in-depth arts coverage, I suppose. Unless you’re the Times writing about Broadway.

I could probably ratchet up my interest again. Ever since my efforts to be art curator at the Minneapolis Public Libraries fell flat, and I didn’t take whatshisnames place over at the Institute of Arts I’ve fallen out of the city’s art world.

No one returns my calls.

We are considering tweaking the concept of the blog that I write for on mspmag, The Morning After, and mixing in more and more smaller, newsier type pieces, a la something like Gimme Noise on CP, I guess. (One of the first, by Tad, actually linked to Melodie’s post.) As a staff writer whose first priority is to longer pieces in the magazine, it’s difficult to gather the mindspace and mindtime in order to bring a serious force of thought to a piece of art, and then to write up a critique immediately after the event, even (or especially) when answering to a self-imposed web deadline. It’s difficult, but not impossible (although those ink stained wretches at the daily have it ROUGH).

And our numbers are pretty good, but they’re not Zimmern numbers, you know what I’m sayin’? At least we have the luxury of our demographic–we need fewer eyeballs to pay the bills, because they’re premium eyeballs.

Steve, you’re saying old suburban people now read the internet? Don’t the botox injections make it hard to squint at the small type?

You are incorrigible, old man.

he only discernable difference between the poor sighted moneyed old people who read MSP and Tom Bartel is a zip code.

What, you don’t think we gots people up in the K-hood?

God, it feels GOOD to be back in BURBANK!

I was so sick of being on good behavior all the time. I want to live! Like C.Peck!

Marsh does Peck. We’ll call it “Dithering Glance”

I know this is not a very nuanced review, but I went to see Two Gentlemen of Verona last night at the Guthrie. It was very entertaining. In fact it was one of those productions that you walk out of silently thanking the Guthrie for paying Joe Dowling whatever he is paid for being one of the great talents of world theater.

I read recently that America has never had a proper arts scene because this country has never had an aristocracy to support it and provide employment in the arts. Oh sure, America has had plenty of industrialists, robber barons and Warren Berkshire Hathaway Buffets, but a real arts supporting class, we’ve never had. And, incidentally, I read this in the book “The Geography of Nowhere” by James Howard Kunstler. The idea struck me as both bitter, Anti-American, and true in a sad, warped kind of way.

So, in a nutshell, what Kuntsler was saying is that it’s difficult to support a theater scene unless you have a critical mass of queens.

No. I think Kunstler is saying is that judge how great a civilization is (was) by the art and architecture said civilization leaves behind or has created. Roman civilization left behind the Coliseum. European civilization left behind Michelangelo. And America at the height of its power and greatness has built cheap, pre-fabricated suburban homes and big box retail stores.

What about jazz? The architecture of Philip Johnson? Americans did that in addition to the pre-fab/big box stuff.

@Binx: I don’t think it’s fair to compare coliseums and statues with suburbia. Apples to oranges. In the age of Michelangelo, European citizens were throwing garbage out the window onto the streets below so, in one sense, America in the modern age is vastly superior.

For an arts contribution, I would submit Hollywood as the American entry.

Wow, who knew the IDS had secret floors?

Secret floors

The building has two secret floors between the 8th and 9th floors. They are known as 8A and 8B. They are not accessible from any of the building’s passenger elevators and contain HVAC equipment. As a result, the 9th floor is really the 11th floor and the 51st floor is really 53rd. This can be elucidated from the outside of the building or by walking down the stairwell from the 9th floor or higher.

I would submit the modern American city with its skyscrapers and modern conveniences. The Metrodome is far more complex than the Coliseum, and there is one in just about every major American city.

Don’t you end up in John Malcovich’s head on one of those hidden floors?

Noodleman! Go wash your mouth out with soap ASAP. You are submitting the force that has created “He’s Not that Into You” and other such feats of great art as our contribution to art? Good lord, I’m sure you think parking garages are beautiful too and you like walking down the street and seeing nothing but houses that are all garage doors.

Kunstler has a point that America’s quest for individual freedom has led us down a path of squandering resources. There’s no glue. American’s are all out for themselves. Our resources go to building new Super Targets every 500 feet and the parking lots to service them. No one in this country ever says, hey- hold up, let’s create something beautiful and give some artists or composures some jobs so that we can have something that we can all enjoy! No. It’s all let’s build another Wal-Mart in New Ulm to make a buck and drive out the local businesses.

Aw man, Kunstler is a weird little guy and he’s points are pretty wacky. But, I can’t get over the idea that he might have some valid points. These points I write, I credit to him, by the way. I am just quoting the book.

The Metrodome is ugly. It looks like a giant zit that I want to pop!

Also, Christopher Alexander in his book “A Pattern Language” says that skyscrapers aren’t human scale and hurt the social fabric of the community.

I’d hate to be in a skyscraper if the power ever went out. Or a plane were to hit. I’m terrified of them.

Agreed on the Metrodome esthetics. And some skyscrapers are hideous. But some are gorgeous.

My point, despite its ugliness, is that it is just as much an engineering feat to make the Metrodome as it was to make the Coliseum. I’m sure there were people back in the day who complained about how ugly the Coliseum and the Parthenon were. There is plenty of things that we have produced to crow about.

Personally, I think the big difference is that we have spent a great deal on architecture at the expense of music and theater. Whether we find the Metrodome beautiful or not is irrelevant — someone designed it and it makes its statement. Not everyone loved Mozart’s stuff. Our cities are vastly more architecturally interesting than Rome or Athens were in the day.

I love skyscrapers, even though I’m deathly afraid of heights. I also think the Metrodome is beautiful.

WHAT?!!!

Ok, not everybody liked Mozart. Um, while that may be HIGHLY unlikely, the fact remains that Mozart is the most enduring composer to ever live whether a small fraction of his contemporaries didn’t like him or not and if you believe the movie, the only people who didn’t like was that one evil guy who was jealous of his talent.

And I’m sure LOTS of people complained of the Parathion… Oh my! WHAT AN EYESORE THAT IS!!!!

My heart aches as I walk around American cities where there is never place to even REST unless you’re resting in an automobile on the side of a freeway or waiting for someone to buy a spatula at Wal Mart in a hot and dry parking lot. American cities were designed for one thing and one purpose only: access to cars. You can’t even walk down the street without fearing for your life and the only piece of public space in downtown Minneapolis is a tiny stamp-sized concrete sunken area called Peavey Plaze, and I’m not even sure if it’s technically public.

Okay Binx, calm down. It’ll be okay. Just take ‘er easy.

The problem is that you are judging two things with two different standards, and declaring the old one better.

Do you think it was a treat to walk down Roman, Greek, or any roads of the ancient world? The smell alone would turn your stomach. If you could separate yourself from some sort of modern viewpoint and objectively judge things, you will see that things aren’t as awful as you make them to be.

Further, Mozart’s music was revolutionary. It was not like anything that came before. It was the “rock and roll” of its day. Some liked it and some did not. However, it became appreciated after some time.

Who else produced music at the time? Who were the big composers? You can’t even name the “one evil guy who was jealous of his talent.” Clearly, we have far more composers than Austria did. Hence, we have far more breadth, but not as much depth. That doesn’t make what we have any less. In my opinion, John Williams is the Mozart of our day. He is doing quite fine.

Ok. I take your point. But doesn’t that bother you? Doesn’t it bug you that we don’t have the depth we did before? I know we’re supposed to be all modern, but I really think that just because we figured out a combustible engine or two and embraced antiseptics doesn’t mean we’re still not just overgrown apes with car keys. All the theaters in town are decaying and the powers that be order taxes to be raised to build a stadium but won’t raise taxes to provide dental insurance for children. I mean, that really bothers me. I can’t help it. We’re supposed to be so modern and techinology is supposed to save us but art isn’t valued and that’s a sign of something larger amiss.

That’s all I’m saying. People can’t believe everything they see on TV. Or read on the internet for that matter.

This thread became awesome late Friday.

@Binx Bolling: It’s true that not everything created by Hollywood ascends to the level of “genius.” However, I was not pointing at any one specific example when I made my nomination; just the overall concept of the motion picture as “dream machine.”