14 April 2005

stray question after an evening of dionysian excess and moments of infathomable dialogue.

if people want to live a lie why do they bother conversing with people who do not?
that was one of those questions fueled by wine and vaguaries that deserves a bit more detail, i suppose.

the evening was spent working at Passe Muraille's annual fundraiser, surrounded by Artists aplenty and "other members of the theatre community" (read: board members and rich sponsors). i see these (latter) faces just once a year for this token event, that sees our humble theatre decked out in glassware, opulent catering, and lots and lots of chatter.

overhearing peoples' critiques (about art and life) makes me wonder about the nature of criticism and the nature of honesty.

about peoples' ability to make brash and assertive statements about what is good, what is bad, what is honest– when their actions (what they do with their lives, the responsibility with which they evaluate their own actions, the compassion they have for others around them and their behaviours) are so diametrically opposed to everything they are saying.

i have trouble understanding how these people can use words like good, bad, openness, honesty, and whatever other adjectives we use to shower praise on both art and other humans, as they sit from their privileged seat as audience member, coward, or passive observer.

this is not a rant against rich people or sponsors. i include myself and my community amongst the people who have difficulty with this. i too am guilty of speaking spontaneously, of wild notions and endless pipedreams about things i want to do, the person i would be in an ideal world.

the most unwieldy challenge of being burdened with ideas is to keep up with onesself and the real world. words carry weight, but they do not supplant actions.

when people speak in the active tense, expecting their verbs to carry the burden of their inaction, those same verbs lose all their significance, and discredit the speaker.


Anonymous said...


kim said...

rather live ally.
but in accordance with ???, what does dionysian excess look like, and what sort of dialogue renders itself into two mutually excluding monologues?