@layman,
The lengthy post to which you are responding was an attempt to address the current Shakespeare in the Park production of "Julius Caesar" on its artistic merits alone without introducing political or moral issues. I don't know how well the attempt succeeded but that was my intent and so all the
"abstract discussion of what art is," etc. was very much part of the basic point of
that post.
One of the criticisms of the production is that it might incite politically motivated and directed violence. Whether or not that is fair criticism is a question I intentionally avoided answering. The production, in my opinion based on what I have read about it by the people who have actually seen it (largely theater critics) seems to have been an artistic failure or as us anti-intellectuals prefer to say,
lousy.
It isn't an artistic failure because it might incite violence as a response to politics. I can easily imagine a magnificent work of art inciting violence as a response to all sorts of things.
It is an artistic failure for several reasons which I attempted to explain, but one of them is that the intent behind it (or to be more precise the casting of a cartoonish version of Donald Trump as Julius Caesar) was done not for artistic reasons but for commercial ones and the indulging of petty and base emotions of not only an anticipated large segment of the audience, but of the director Eustis himself.
As I wrote, I don't have a problem with artists wanting to make a buck and receive the acclaim of the professional critics and the audience. I suspect that directing a Shakespeare in the Park production is a lucrative endeavor, and unless the organizers wish to take a chance on an unknown director without much of a portfolio of successful productions, the person who gets the honor is not only going to get a very nice paycheck, but he or she is already pretty well off thanks to a lot of nice paychecks earned in the past. In other words, someone with commercial experience and success in theater.
Selling seats and creating magnificent art are not mutually exclusive and the ideal situation is one where the magnificence of the art is selling seats. In this case though, the way Eustis substituted a cartoon Trump for the Julius Caesar of either Shakespeare or History was not driven by artistic intent (as proven by aspects of the production described in my original post). Instead, as Frank Zappa might say it was
strictly commercial.
Eustis wants a commercial success for the same reasons anyone involved in a business endeavor does: Money and the opportunity to make more money. Clinton received 79% of New York City votes and Trump, 19%.
A very large number of the voters making up that 79% moved seamlessly from
Clinton Supporters to the
Trump Resistance. It was a pretty dramatic result and a good indication that if you were producing a play of any sort, for a NYC audience, your chances of commercial success would be a lot greater if you portrayed Donald Trump as a vile buffoon than as noble, military and political hero of the people, who happened to let power ultimately corrupt him. Throw in a bloody scene wherein the
Trump Monster is savagely killed and you've got a potential blockbuster on your hands. If you happen to be among the ranks of the
Trump Resistance yourself, so much the better.
Again, while a artistic masterpiece and a commercial success are by no means mutually exclusive, if the major device used to reflect the director's interpretation of "Julius Caesar" is driven by commercial concerns and fails in many ways to coherently display that interpretation and in a way that actually can be tethered to the original work, the result can only be termed an artistic failure or
lousy art.
It's entirely possible that this production might incite someone to commit violence and I would go so far as to say it might easily incite a lunatic to commit violence, but the central question remain: To what extent, if any, would those who have brought this production to the stage be responsible for whatever violent action it might incite?
A secondary question is: Can any act of politically motivated violence be directly linked to this production and if not, is it accurate and reasonable to say it contributes to an overall political climate that incites violence as a political response?
Starting with the second question, the answer to "Part A" is YES. If, for example, the man who shot Republican office holders while they were practicing baseball admitted that he was inspired to to commit his violent act by the Eustis production, a direct link is established. In all likelihood however, the people who might commit these crimes will either not survive them to provide their inspirations, nor will leave crystal clear evidence of the source(s) of their inspiration. The answer to "Part B" is, I think, less certain.
Most people, intuitively, believe that violent rhetoric and violent deeds (even if only representational) contribute to a environment in which civility is on the decline. They don't need studies by folks with PhDs in Sociology to convince them of this and I very much doubt they would believe in the validity of studies that tried to convince them otherwise.
I also think that a great number of people believe that these things contribute to an environment where violence is more likely, but not to the same degree as the they accept the first premise. They might also be more likely to have their beliefs influenced by sociological studies, but whether this is because they are less certain or more reluctant to draw that conclusion I can't say, but as I've argued elsewhere there is very little difference in the acceptance of either of these premises between the left and the right, unless and until the violent rhetoric and deeds can be attributed to one side or the other, so that liberals are far less likely to believe the Eustis production may in someway incite politically motivated violence than conservatives, and conservatives were far less willing than liberals to accept that Sarah Palin's use of cross-hair symbols in a political communique contributed to political violence. In the case of the Gabby Gifford shooting, it was clearly shown that the shooter was driven by a psychotic mind that probably could not differentiate between political ideologies, let alone be inspired by the symbols one political figure used, but if Lochner had been less demonstrably insane and more like Hodgkinson, the right would still have resisted linking Palin's symbol usage to the shooting far more than the left.
I find this very troubling for a number of reasons. First of all it means that it is very unlikely that the two sides will ever come together for a serious discussion of the impact of hateful and overheated rhetoric, that might lead to both sides working to turn down the heat. Secondly, and most disturbing, is how this behavior demonstrates just how deep and wide the political divide in this country actually is; just how tribal our politics have become.
No matter which side of the coin represents your political views, this ideology based difference in terms of the degree of acceptance or condemnation of violent words and deeds, can easily be perceived as the other side being tolerant, or worse, desirous of political violence or willing to stoop very low and accuse such things of those with whom they disagree...and in either case, holding tightly to their own sanctimony.
The notion that those who disagree with you politically are not merely wrong, but evil and venal, makes compromise impossible. No one believes compromising with evil is a good thing. More dangerously, it can lead people like Hodgkinson, who are not entirely insane like Lochner, to not only rationalize that violence as a political response is necessary, but to believe that it is somehow heroic, (The violent tactics of Anti-fa groups on campuses provide a perfect example). This is a point I believe you were making about the Eustis production and its scene of the very violent and very bloody assassination of Trump/Caesar.
Regardless of whether or not Eustis or any other artist, pundit or politician (of either side of the political spectrum) should be legally prohibited from political rhetoric or representations that are deemed hateful and violent (albeit not blatant and undeniable illegal incitement to violence) is a matter for the courts to ultimately decide, or more accurately,
reinforce as there is already a large body of case law that pretty clearly comes down on the side of free speech having a lot of latitude.
I don't argue, however, that the law should be brought to bear on these people, and censorship imposed. I do argue that these individuals should be not only able to police themselves, but expected to by the public. A homeless man muttering violent political rhetoric has about a zero chance of inspiring anyone to commit violence. Public figures of any stature do, and they have a responsibility to monitor and regulate their influence. (The whole "With great power comes great responsibility" superhero line). If they don't, then I find nothing wrong and much right with citizens taking
legal and civil steps to do it for them. The two audience members who stood up through the Trump/Caesar assassination scene, and repeatedly shouted "Shame!" were doing just that and not engaged in censorship or anything like
book burning. I don't know if Delta or BOA withdrew their funding from the production because of pressure from the public, but if they did, good on those members of the public.
The Eustis production's use of the Trump/Caesar character served no artistic purpose. Eustis didn't have to employ it to realize a vision he had of the play's
lesson, and if he hadn't, he very possibly would have received greater critical acclaim for his production. However, he did need to use it if he wanted to create a sure fire controversy that would garner him, at the very least, a boatload of attention. It also likely made him something of a hero in the social and commercial circles in which he operates and that will likely lead him to more opportunities to make money and achieve "success" in his field. In my mind, it was a cynical and self-indulgent choice based far more on personal gain that any artistic vision, and therefore while he was legally entitled to make it, as a citizen, an artist and a personal with morality (assuming he considers him such...you never know with artists) he should not have. He and his supporters, clearly, have a right to disagree and offer whatever arguments they can form to make a case for why I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but the response I am arguing for, suggesting, and letting hang out there for the interpretation has virtually no chance of leading to violence and no rational person would suggest otherwise.
