tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post7938129145612519835..comments2023-09-20T14:34:21.102+02:00Comments on Postcards from the Gods: New year / old debateAndrew Haydonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-49683833372229045702008-01-18T02:14:00.000+01:002008-01-18T02:14:00.000+01:00I think that what Goldman said was clearly silly a...I think that what Goldman said was clearly silly and almost willfully ignorant of the realities not only of politics, but the actual nature of her business (mind you it was easy rhetoric and haven’t we all been carried away from time to time? I know I have). The question is what is ‘left’ now in the arts, is that even a useful label now? Is David Hare left wing for example? Are the private school university educated playwrights naturally left wing, or can they be at all? But then my dustman might be a Thatcherite (and in fact is probably more likely to be, openly anyway, than anyone in the creative business). Billington actually makes some interesting points about this in his book...<BR/>Anyway, is this simply chaos at the Soho or something genuinely more worrying? From a humble punters point of view I have enjoyed a lot of the recent work presented there (Joe Guy esp), and the forthcoming season has also caught my eye (but they again, I would have booked it anyway if I’m honest). The deeper questions are; what is the Soho for and does it need an overarching artistic policy as such? I mean if it is presenting quality new work form a variety of companies, then where is the problem (and I suppose that is an artistic policy)? If you are against Goldman for purely uttering fuzzy political rhetoric then you’d have to fire much of the arts establishment (but we must break the dictatorship of the pseudo lefties comrades!).<BR/>Btw: That Face, a play by a very posh person. Pro traditional family rightwing, or anti capitalist cruelties leftwing? The Family Plays also at the Royal Court Upstairs; eviscerating condemnation of our capitalistic society or a yearning for a simpler family economy (is one of those left wing, or both right wing?). Classifying drama is difficult, all calls for social change are not left wing, as some people seem to have forgotten.Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17789034764982239963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-5961792536557015312008-01-09T23:42:00.000+01:002008-01-09T23:42:00.000+01:00Hi Nina --I'm glad you're here, it's good to have ...Hi Nina --<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're here, it's good to have your perspective on this, and reassuring. I was surprised by the vehemence of Anonymous's contribution, and I'm pleased that there's a balancing voice in the mix.<BR/><BR/>all best, ChrisChris Goodehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17993698000314709291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-26290312220340530902008-01-08T19:19:00.000+01:002008-01-08T19:19:00.000+01:00In reference to Anonymous's comment about the alle...In reference to Anonymous's comment about the alleged climate of confusion and fear at Soho, I would like to say that I haven't experienced it. Our mission has been articulated with great clarity and mobilised with flexibility, confidence and a commitment to risk. This ethos is enthusiastically shared and supported by the enormous range of artists who work here.Ninahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16126858357972692458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-18002136191756868962008-01-03T22:44:00.000+01:002008-01-03T22:44:00.000+01:00If you like "defenestration" you'll love "pecoriou...If you like "defenestration" you'll love "pecorious". But it doesn't come up quite so often, to my infinite regret.<BR/><BR/>You'll Google in vain for it, though. "Did you mean precarious?" No I bloody didn't.<BR/><BR/>xChris Goodehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17993698000314709291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-12635617642788555492008-01-03T19:28:00.000+01:002008-01-03T19:28:00.000+01:00the word 'defenestration' has come up a multitude ...the word 'defenestration' has come up a multitude of times this christmas. i don't know why. it must be an up and coming craze with the kids or something....https://www.blogger.com/profile/08384106613259471125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-12525742854657781352008-01-03T18:44:00.000+01:002008-01-03T18:44:00.000+01:00I just learnt the word defenestration. Fucking bri...I just learnt the word <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration" REL="nofollow">defenestration</A>. Fucking brilliant.Andrew Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837535447180621963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-730906462092495432008-01-03T16:21:00.000+01:002008-01-03T16:21:00.000+01:00it's certainly got me worried.it's certainly got me worried.alexfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08663311179979081963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-32056761272680697172008-01-03T16:19:00.000+01:002008-01-03T16:19:00.000+01:00Good point!Good point!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-15774679217991845182008-01-03T16:16:00.000+01:002008-01-03T16:16:00.000+01:00>> characterized by or causing diminution or curta...>> characterized by or causing diminution or curtailment; "their views of life were reductive and depreciabory" - R.H.Rovere<BR/><BR/><BR/>Where is TW? Surely "depreciabory" must be of concern?Chris Goodehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17993698000314709291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-67139655939394838562008-01-03T15:50:00.000+01:002008-01-03T15:50:00.000+01:00Your word does function in the way you would like ...Your word does function in the way you would like it to, just not exclusively. In three years of studying the debate between science and religion the word crops up with that usage all of the time. So don't worry about using it like that again.<BR/><BR/>TW is almost certainly a 'he'. Internet pedants almost always are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-42052764961797803762008-01-03T15:40:00.000+01:002008-01-03T15:40:00.000+01:00Well, to be fair, he/she did pin down that I thoug...Well, to be fair, he/she did pin down that I thought "reductive" was an essentially negative phrase - so I've learnt something useful. <BR/><BR/>I'm more annoyed that one of my favourite words turns out not to function in the way I'd like it to. <BR/><BR/>I would change it on the blog, but that would make this whole comments section look mad.Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-76963472479840824152008-01-03T15:33:00.000+01:002008-01-03T15:33:00.000+01:00Well, a google definition search of reductive come...Well, a google definition search of reductive comes up with:<BR/><BR/>characterized by or causing diminution or curtailment; "their views of life were reductive and depreciabory" - R.H.Rovere <BR/>wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn<BR/><BR/>A google definition search of diminution comes up with:<BR/><BR/>Reduces the size of something in order that it may be made to appear ridiculous or in order to be examined closely and have its faults seen close up. For example, treating the Canadian Members of Parliament as a squabbling group of little boys is an example of diminution. ...<BR/><BR/>(Admittedly this is from an australian dictionary aimed at kids...)<BR/><BR/>So I would say the use of the term is fair: You are accusing Lisa goldman of reducing the size and complexity of right wing thought in order to ridicule it. <BR/><BR/>That said, the more literal use of the term 'reductive' does refer to the method of seeking to describe or understand a process by looking at the constituent parts of that process (i.e. describing human behaviour by looking at genetics). This is slightly different from the way you used it which was to imply that someone was seeking to devalue a whole way of thinking by reducing it intellectually to its lowest common denominator. this is why I suggested that 'selective' or 'simplistic' might be marginally more accurate term. <BR/><BR/>Actually, the real problem here is not your very mildly controversial use of the term, but more that this TW guy is being a prick. (Again). TW likes to try to devalue the whole of someones argument by picking up on one tiny detail and trying to discredit it in order to look intellectually superior. The trouble with this approach is that it is transparent, shallow, and - because he never provides any argument of his own which other might criticise - cowardly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-76022523600862080942008-01-03T15:22:00.000+01:002008-01-03T15:22:00.000+01:00Chris, that's exactly what I thought - but I did l...Chris, that's exactly what I thought - but I did look it up <A HREF="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reductive" REL="nofollow">here </A> and that sense doesn't appear to have found its way to the dictionary. And following TW's stern ticking off, I thought I should acknowledge that. <BR/><BR/>That said, I am confused, since what you say is precisely how I understand the word. Perhaps we're all labouring under the same delusion?Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-90380324729970243642008-01-03T12:50:00.000+01:002008-01-03T12:50:00.000+01:00Thinking about it, "selective" or "simplistic" mig...Thinking about it, "selective" or "simplistic" might be slightly better words to characterise Goldman's argument, but I don't think there is much in it. This is a blog aftert all and not a philosophical treatise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-31540301900558604672008-01-03T12:44:00.000+01:002008-01-03T12:44:00.000+01:00I dont think there is anything wrong with your use...I dont think there is anything wrong with your use of the word "reductive". It is a word that is commonly used to critise an argument or position for being overly simplistic. Richard Dawkins is often accused of being reductive in his characterisation of religion. In fact, in his introduction to The Blind Watchmaker he parodied this critism by reffering to a "mythical baby-eating reductionist".<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the word has been coopted by some people as a positive thing - Lewis Wolpert in his introduction to Six Impossible Things before Breakfast descxribes himself as a "reductionist, materialist, atheist". <BR/><BR/>True both of these examples are from a different field, but nonetheless, the use of the word to describe Lisa Goldman's characterisation if the right is fair in my opinion. Everything she said can be attributed to alot of poepl and institutions on the right (The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, Much of The Tory Partyy, Richard Littlejohn, Simon Heffer, Melanie Phillips) but it clearly totally fails to even begin to provide a coherent account of the whole of 'the right' in this country - let alone elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>What do you understand the word to mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-76018736635226703142008-01-03T12:29:00.000+01:002008-01-03T12:29:00.000+01:00Do you know, you're absolutely right? How strange....Do you know, you're absolutely right? How strange. Funny how you can have a perfectly clear idea of what a word means and sometimes be completely wrong - shame, it was really useful the way I'd been using it. Fairly common error, though, isn't it? Possible candidate for a transition of meaning as a result (new meaning - to make small, and not in a good way)?Andrew Haydonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05568061302451610140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-88312025220951474142008-01-03T12:14:00.000+01:002008-01-03T12:14:00.000+01:00In what sense was her thesis "reductive" - or are ...In what sense was her thesis "reductive" - or are you just using the word without knowing what it means because you think it carries with it some sort of negative connotation ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-60044979540503550802008-01-02T23:13:00.000+01:002008-01-02T23:13:00.000+01:00I'm going to wear my anonymity cloak for this one....I'm going to wear my anonymity cloak for this one... Cowardly or politic: you be the judge. But for what it's worth - & very much from the left -<BR/><BR/>Thank you for skewering Lisa Goldman's "politics" (slogans, bluster, prejudice, utter vacuity, all pursued <I>precisely</I> to whatever extent is compatible with her own personal ambition); & thank you both for ventilating the issue of the artistic policy vacuum at Soho and the alarming climate that Goldman seems to be creating there. I'm currently half-in a conversation with Soho and the place seems absolutely paralysed with confusion and not a little fear.<BR/><BR/>The reason there aren't any worthwhile plays coming from the right is that the <I>left</I> has lost the ability to analyse or critique the liberal consensus, precisely because the generation of playwrights and directors currently reaching maturity grew up at a time when cursory anti-Thatcherite sloganeering was all that was needed to indicate a supposedly leftist engagement. If anybody from the left was creating cogent and argumentative drama, you can bet the right would react. As it is, the prevailing consensus is so soft-right, and most interrogation of it so vapid, why would artists from the right feel moved to speak?<BR/><BR/>As Andy has rightly noted before, leftist argument would anyway start with a serious analysis of the structural and formal underpinnings of theatre production, but that's as hard an imperative for the left to swallow as for the right.<BR/><BR/>All of the above is obviously pretty low-resolution stuff but compared with Goldman's self-titillating flummery, it'll do for now.<BR/><BR/>Nice to have you back! xAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4481691725314537521.post-10473637479084342022008-01-02T17:47:00.000+01:002008-01-02T17:47:00.000+01:00...also, what about someone like William Morris, a......also, what about someone like William Morris, as a left-wing thinker who was very partial to looking back fondly on a pre-industrial, fragmented and localised society. <BR/><BR/>In fact - how can looking back at the startling, infinite gamut of history every crystalize any one set of viewpoints? <BR/><BR/>What a lot of silly, silly nonsense. <BR/><BR/>I imagine you probably know more than you are letting on about Lisa Goldman's rather fuzzy artistic policy - from people I know at the Soho the main problem at the moment is that no one knows what to bring here as they haven't a clue what she actually wants. Ill-considered and fatuous statements like that seem to do little to help matters.Andrew Fieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837535447180621963noreply@blogger.com