1

Hi. My name is Kevin Doyle and I am the author of this essay posted here; which has been published without my knowledge or permission. For the bulk of the last two weeks or so, I have been in Zagreb, Croatia without my computer charger -- then bouncing around Belgium/The Netherlands for meetings and research. Sorry for what must seem like a late response. The essay was started in the spring of this year, as a way to figure out my reactions to a great deal of work I had seen. When I purchased my tickets for the January 2012 period, I had no intention of writing about anything. This was not pre-conceived. The investment of time and money was the same Ive made during previous Januarys. However, I could not believe what I was seeing. It was a disappointment on a lot of levels; both professionally and artistically. One that was echoed by friends and colleagues. Something clicked. My reactions did not fade with time. On the contrary, they only got stronger. So, I started to write about it. Elements of the essay were borne out of discussions I had with the editor of an American quarterly magazine in 2011; a publication that is outside of theatre and the arts. This discussion pre-dated the work referenced in the essay. At the editors suggestion, a very early incomplete draft was submitted. The editor sent back some notes, in an attempt to enlarge the scope of what was basically a rant. I went back to the essay during the summer, and a final draft was submitted via email in September. The essay was written in dialogue with three different arts professionals in our field -- one in the United States, one from Great Britain, and one from Europe. I asked their advice, to confirm or clarify that what I had experienced was indeed what had transpired. Several of the works we saw together. I sent out versions and drafts to other colleagues -- three in Europe and three in the United States; each of whom had experience with the work from this period. These drafts were sent in confidence. The emails were labeled confidential. I was looking for feedback and received feedback; some of it quite solid, even though I have not had the opportunity to incorporate it. What has appeared online is one of those drafts. It has not been fact-checked for accuracy or received any genuine editorial assistance at all. I have no idea if some of the facts in the essay are even correct; it simply had not evolved to that point. Some of the things alluded to, like my companys participation in APAP 2013, are not even happening. In my view, it was also not complete. There were other events from the January 2012 period that were worth mentioning -1) the outright coup by The Mad Ones at the New Ohio Theatre; 2) the downright fraud pulled off by Goat Island; or 3) the forthright workshop of Aaron Landsmans City Council Meeting at HERE. All three carried echoes and aspects of things that tied in to some of the themes discussed in the essay draft. I havent had the physical time to explore how and why. I wish I did. This draft was rejected for publication by editors of the American quarterly magazine. Two of the reasons: 1) It was more appropriate for an insider theatre journal; and 2) the issues of a New

York scene were not really of interest to an editorial majority with a national focus. The essay and my opinions are in no way a reflection of the editors opinions, nor are they sponsors of my views. The same goes for the professionals I consulted. Sorry folks, but they will remain anonymous. I read the essay to myself a few more times; going over the issues in my head. In person, I read sections to two collaborators because the content was relevant to projects we are currently working on. And thats it. As far as I was concerned, this essay was dead. -----But then, here we are. Someone else has chosen to publish this draft, without my knowledge or permission. I accept 100% responsibility for the content of this essay. Even though there are things I would change or edit, its still mine. I wrote it. However, the idea that I would post this anonymously is a joke. I have a pretty established track record of speaking my mind in essays and letters on a variety of issues in our field; with an equally established record of seeing those thoughts ignored. Does the fact that Caleb Hammons and/or Culturebot serve as de facto posters give my words more significance in a new context? Beats me. I have never met Caleb Hammons, except seeing him introduce nights at the CATCH series. Im not a big fan of Culturebot, to be honest; with all due respect, from what Ive read (or tried to read) of late, it alternates between the unintelligible and advance PR used by artists reps to prep/ generate review(s)[ers] at mainstream publications. I actually did attend the PRELUDE Manifesto event that was alluded to by the sender and found some of it quite good and inspiring; especially the rhythm of Miguel Gutierreuz Skype delivery and Leah Winklers very honest and accurate assessments. If I had a problem with the event -- besides David Levine muting the sound, meaning that those of us watching in the next room via live feed could not hear -- it was that none of the participating artists seemed to want to stick around for the next artists manifesto who followed their turn. The arc of views expressed in the essay are not that heretical -- or original. Internationally, it is an accepted viewpoint by professionals [whom I know at least] that segments of American contemporary work are not up-to-par with what is going on in the rest of the world. I just spent a week with many of them, and their viewpoints are a whole lot more extreme and frank than positions I took in the essay. Sometimes this applies to festivals mentioned; sometimes it applies to a larger New York scene; sometimes it doesnt apply at all; while at other times the pattern works in reverse. There are identifiable reasons for this, but thats an essay for another day. The idea that all our energies and resources each January are clustered around a singular goal to gain the attention of professionals, curators or presenters -- as opposed to, say, taking those

energies/resources and applying them towards generating new audiences during the other eleven months of the year -- is a valid point. Its evidence of the many contradictions and fallacies which permeate our field. It is also not limited to New York in January. Other countries have different versions of the never-ending shit-show-circus-on-ice and face very similar issues. The idea of clothing a predictable dramaturgy within edgy and/or experimental methods or language, is a trend that has not relented in recent years. The argument does not apply to everyone; nor does it even apply to other works created in the past by several of the artists mentioned in the essay. The phenomenon is by no means limited to New York. Ive seen my fair share of Canadian and European work that exhibits similar traits. One could write a similar essay, perhaps, about other festivals around the world. But the January 2012 period is the one I experienced -- so here we are. Perhaps if the advance PR language associated with some of the works referenced was not so over-the-top with descriptions that did not match up to reality -- I wouldnt be here; and neither would you. ----I feel there is a strange, inexplicable starting point that we American theatre artists possess -one that is so rooted in realism and the predictable and the digestible -- that I wonder if we seem to notice it. But it is there. It affects our work and our approach -- regardless of the mission statements or PR statements we attach to our work, which attempt to claim otherwise. One could see these differences highlighted between the French group -- Les Chiens de Navarre -- and the American group -- NTUSA -- during the France-America Match: From Stereotypes to Reality at the Invisible Dog Art Center. It doesnt mean that people/artists are evil or that either of the works were bad -- but one can notice the differences. The former, comfortable with the surreal and the unresolved; the latter almost needing the linear and the literal as an anchor by which to moor the performance. A similar comparison could be made in how the found material of recorded speeches by the American preacher Jimmy Swaggart is tackled by two different artists -- the American artist/ performer Andrew Dinwiddie -- and the Belgian artist/performer Lisbeth Gruwez. The former is rooted in the literal via its exploration of the source material. In Dinwiddies performance piece Get Mad At Sin! a conceit of simulacrum is established, via recreating a speech verbatim. In the latter, Gruwez -- with her sound designer Maarten Van Cauwenberghe -- uses the recorded Swaggart speeches in Its going to get worse and worse and worse my friend as excerpts, as bits and pieces of repetition to build a larger composition. They employ the recordings as tools and building blocks towards the construction of an entirely new work of art -- one that is more abstracted; one that lives in a realm between dance and performance art. The latter evolves and subverts itself, somehow growing and evolving as a transformative work of art. The former is stunningly executed, but yet seems one-dimensional by comparison; as if a great idea was formed and then simply was ran with until its natural linear conclusion.

Its not rocket science to point that out. Nor should discussing it be derided. I believe there is a vast difference in the American version of our field -- one that widens by the day -- between the mission statement, the grant statement, the press release -- and what actually transpires in reality during the course of a work of contemporary performance/theatre. Ive been a paying audience member in New York since around 1994, and cant recall any prior time in my life where this phenomenon has happened with greater frequency. Whereas in the past, I would collect non-theatre friends to come see work and they would leave amazed and interested in our field -- the current trends of late have all too often left my non-theatre friends perplexed and disappointed; never to return. Why is it controversial to state this? Why do we refrain from publicly stating our comments, instead of drowning them with our close friends at a local bar? Why do we retreat from the obvious and attempt to justify it via convoluted criticism? Why do we attempt to manage it and stay ahead of it with elaborate PR tricks? The late Australian art critic Robert Hughes was able to mount as much before he passed away with the film The Mona Lisa Curse. The American art critic Dave Hickey, came to similar conclusions in a recent article in The Guardian. There is sincere anger expressed in the essay. If people want to assign that anger to a severe case of professional jealousy, youre mistaken. The anger comes from watching our field descend into the realm of a clique; where a great deal of the obvious is not discussed publicly. For example: clothing a predictable dramaturgy within an experimental veneer; or attempting to grapple with complex social issues via limited, narrative means/scope; or -- [god forbid] -- the inherent fallacies and contradictions which exist in our presenting and funding models or programs. I invite anyone who wishes to take the same standards discussed in the essay and apply them to my work; either in the past, or in the future. Please. Please. Let me know if I fail to employ methods of abstraction or repetition in a work that attempts to grapple with our ongoing financial crisis. Please. Let me know if I fail to apply methods of deconstruction or dcollage in a proposed work that attempts to deal with our history of public arts funding in the United States. Please. Let me know if in the course of making a documentary film about Iraqi refugees, I cant conceive of some other approach to narrative and storytelling beyond the stock, standard talking head interview approach. Please. Let me know if I drift into the predictable or the sentimental in a work that attempts to explore what may have transpired in my fathers brain during the last paralyzed year of his life. If you see a show program where I paste a resume/bio longer than a Dickens novel; or -- if you catch me re-using a good press quote so often it begins to feel like a Pepsi slogan; or -- if I approach collaborations more as some collector of other peoples resumes as opposed to a

collaboration emerging from an actual, pre-existing dialogue; or -- if I travel to a foreign country to research a new work only to deceive my audiences [for what, like a year?]; or -- if I start making new work geared solely towards satisfying my tenure requirements, as opposed to say following artistic impulses; or -- if I receive 20k to write a new play only to copy and paste from my research sources (and not in the good ole fashioned found-text kind-a-way); or -- if you see my company receive a huge gob of funding only to mail in a train wreck, and then, have the audacity to request private donations from the very people who just paid $25 (+ service charge) as audience members to help clean up the mess -- please -- put me out of my misery. Id be more than happy to sign a document in advance, instructing my family not to press charges. Otherwise, what is the point? ----I would like to apologize to the actors in the works mentioned in the essay. Several of whom gave incredible individual or ensemble performances in pieces I felt werent working, or used experimental media towards a realism affect. Large sections of this essay draft, were clearly intended to be more drunk-scathing-satire-for-shock-effect -- the irresponsible as opposed to criticism. In particular, I would like to offer an apology to Libby King, the lead actress in Mission Drift. Your performance was astonishing. You are a talented actor. I heard your speech that Sunday morning in January 2012. I was moved by your comments on the work process. It was clear you believed in the work and the issues it explored. After this essay draft was rejected, I decided against publishing what has appeared online. The whole Facebook-Twitter online controversy genre has been played out since the days of Octoroon. I knew this fall I would not have time to work the essay into better shape -- less rant, more analysis -- where it might be accepted into a publication outside our field. Someone else decided to take that entire process away from me; although I dont feel the need to embark on a publicized witch hunt. Ive already addressed it personally, it was pretty stupid. But whats done is done. Im the one who wrote it and Im the one who deserves any heat or blowback. Im cool with standing by what I wrote. Thanks!

Kevin Doyle

Zagreb / Antwerp November 3, 2012