Comments on: Sunstone Journal – Friday

By: stephen j

stephen j — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:04:19 +0000

Here’s an interesting essay that has some relevance to the discussion at hand (caution: two instances of cursing):

(Thanks S.P. Bailey, for pointing out those links re alternate voices)

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:26:32 +0000

D. Fletcher,
LaBute’s certainly the most famous playwright we have right now. As to best? Hmmm, I’d choose either Eric Samuelsen or Tim Slover, personally. I would like to see some more variety and range from LaBute before I’d set him up like that.

By: D. Fletcher

D. Fletcher — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:11:11 +0000

I’ll quote myself here (from Times and Seasons) since I’m determined to be centerstage everywhere!

…

I recently set The Articles of Faith to music. It’s meant to be for children, as a replacement or optional setting to the ones which are in the Primary songbook. Some people have bought my music, out of some kindness to me. Whether or not the music is “great,” it doesn’t really matter — it is of little use to anyone. It can’t be used in Primary, because it isn’t part of the correlated group of songs, and it takes too long for children to learn these songs, anyway. My music can’t be done as a vocal solo (it’s got counterpoint) so it won’t be needed in recitals, or Sacrament Meeting. The Church doesn’t need great art — it doesn’t need plays, movies, novels, poetry, visual art of any kind (though Minerva Teigart (SIC) worked at a time when the Church needed murals) or even interpretive art skills like singing, conducting, dancing, acting. Even pianists/organists are becoming less needed, by virtue of automatic accompaniments played on electronic instruments.

The Church doesn’t need artistic works, because it doesn’t use them. Additionally, the Church doesn’t want people to express themselves artistically, which draws attention to the artist and away from the community. Hence, all art created with LDS themes might be considered “subversive,” and indeed, much of it is exactly that, in that it is critical of the Church and the small culture which it has engendered.

P.S. The only art the Church has actually needed over the course of its history is architecture. Somebody must design these buildings. And many of our buildings, certainly the older temples, are quite striking and unusual. The Cardston Temple is the greatest work of art ever developed intentionally and specifically for the LDS church.

…

Jack, to what end? Do members really think we’ll have paintings on our walls or musical “masses” in our SMs? All LDS-themed art is presented outside Church, and I don’t really see this changing any time soon. This is the chief reason I think that artists “fall away,” because they need at least “potential” for presentation, and they’re not getting it in the Church.

And when one presents one’s art outside of Church proper, it’s regarded as subversive. I know, it’s a conundrum, one I’ve been dealing with for 48 years.

P.S. Twenty-five years ago, the Church sponsored a contest for a musical. All you had to do was send a treatment for a show to the judges (one of whom was James Arrington, I believe) and they would hand over $50,000 grant money to write the show. They suggested a Mormon Fiddler on the Roof, as a good example of a show upholding religious values.

Of course, Fiddler itself comes from a great artistic source, stories by Sholom Aleichem. But in Fiddler, the 3rd of the daughters finds a husband outside the faith, a conflict which would never pass muster in the LDS arena. The potential show would have to be safe from worldly conflicts (i.e., not dramatic).

No winner was found, no prize given or show produced. And where would it be produced, anyway? The Church itself is… antithetical to art, like some religious entities of the past.

…

Just my humble opinion, but Neal LaBute is a terrific writer, and if we can claim him, perhaps the best playwright we’ve produced (at BYU, anyway).

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:53:25 +0000

Silver,
Who we fellowhip and who we stand in common causes with are two different things. Say, for example, you went to a political convention– it would be advocating a certain party by being there. If we didn’t want to advocate that party, we most likely wouldn’t go. The panel on which Dutcher spoke with these two gentlemen was called “The Dark Side of Happy Valley”– that’s the common thread they were pointing up at the Symposium. I don’t mind that Darlene finds this disturbing. And she’s fair for wondering whether this is a trend or not in Richard Dutcher.
I don’t mind that he decided to speak with them, but it does make me curious whether he is sending a message by doing so, especially with the kind of questions he was evidently asking them.
But, for the record, I would any of those three over for dinner. It would be a very interesting meal. :]

By: Silver

Silver — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:08:52 +0000

#12 Darlene

“I was very distressed when I first heard that Dutcher would be appearing on the panel at all . . . Just appearing on the panel with those two looked bad to me–it was an acknowledgement that he has something in common with them. I don’t want him to have something in common with them.”

This is a disturbing comment. “Those two” are artists–one is even a filmmaker–just like Dutcher. Therefore, they already have something in common. If the “Good Mormon” artists should shun the “Bad Mormon” artists, not even participate in a discussion for fear of tainted associations, what does that say for the rest of us? Should I move to a different row in Relief Society when a disfellowshipped sister sits next to me? Should we forget our plans to invite our neighbors to dinner because the husband is excommunicated and the daughter pierced her nose?

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:00:07 +0000

Thank you for pointing out these articles to me, Shawn. I was aware of the situation (and even Elder Oaks’s talk), but hadn’t picked up on the prasology. Thus I wanted the definition of what Stephen meant by “alternate voices,” for it could be construed to mean many things, unless one knew the context.
These articles are a rich source for discussion, but at the moment I need to rush and will reply more fully later.

By: S. P. Bailey

S. P. Bailey — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:14:14 +0000

Mahonri: The phrase alternate voices hails from a talk given by Elder Oaks (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20may%201989.htm/alternate%20voices%20.htm). For a more complete understanding of the meanings the phrase conjures up, consider this thoughtful response by Armand Mauss (http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3130). I tried more elegant links, but failed. Anyway, Mormon scholars and artists often tread difficult paths.

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:31:30 +0000

And such work has come from Dutcher so far. Here’s hoping that he keeps it up.

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:28:57 +0000

Kristian,
I agree about your comments about the “dark art” of society. Neil LaBute and Brian Evanson have thrived on portraying shadows– the massachistic, massoginistic, sadisitic and cruel. There is a place for that, all sides of life can be represented, even in the dark hues, but they are so focused upon it, so obsessed. It’s become more of a parlor trick than anything, an easy way out to shock the audience. I personally would love to see more naunced, more balanced and more insightful work than that.

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:24:58 +0000

Stephen, what do you mean by “alternate voices?”
If you mean by that phrase, voices that run contrary to basic Mormon beliefs, I don’t think they’ll ever get much support from the Mormon audience. They may be able to present at Sunstone, but they’ll never capture the heart of the Mormon people at large. Nor do I believe that they ought to feel that they ought to.
If by “alternate voices,” you mean voices that will show new points of view within a Mormon context, while still maintaining a basic faith in the tenets of the Church, then they may be able to get somehow.
As to your question about what degree an artist should feel “entitled” to be accepted– well, I don’t think any artists deserves any such entitlement. Sometimes artists cultivate the attitude that they “deserve” the praise of the world, akin to “build it and they will come.” As much as I love Field of Dreams, it’s not going to be quite like that. Once an artist finds a way to serve a community, once he discovers something that the public can cling to, an idea that assists them, or a beauty that inspires them, then he will have earned his keep. “The Greatest Among You is Your Servant” is not a mantra that many artists cling to, which is a tragedy. We all clamor for our due, for our rights, for our respect and love from society– yet I think we have it backwards. Instead we need to find a need in society and then fill it. We need to be useful. We need to cry out more about responsibilities, than entitlements.