I must say that there are many things in the world that exist and are funded by the government that perhaps would be funds better spent on guide-dogs – I just don’t think that this is one of those pieces.

But I think what is being mis-identified is Imielski’s work as community theatre – and this may be because of the Grotowskian “Poor Theatre” aesthetic and the interviews with blind people as his departure point.

The term “community theatre” should not be mistaken for “amateur theatre” nor a euphemism for “artistically deficient” theatre. Just as Poor Theatre should not be mistaken for “impoverished theatre.”

I think it is important for Jandek to recognise that the methodology and the tradition and the way of making a piece of community theatre is VERY different to that of someone who is making theatre inspired by an idea that comes from a specific community.

They are different.

And deserve to be regarded, as Sarah suggests in her response, in the spirit in which it is offered – which is as a piece of theatre, not a piece of community theatre.

Interestingly, one of my favourite productions of the year was Angus Cerini’s Save for Crying, which featured two intellectually disabled characters played by non-disabled actors. You can read why I loved it here:

http://cameronwoodhead.com/archives/review-mrs-vincent-price-save-for-crying/

So I’m not being in any way narrowly prescriptive. And I agree with all of what John says above. Creative freedom is crucial, but imagination has responsibilities that come with its freedoms.

For me, the freedom of expression question is vital but has to be considered in a larger context than that of the artist (or group of artists) being allowed personal creative freedom. The flip side is perhaps institutional – are non- or partially-sighted people in Australia given the same freedom to act in theatre, to secure desirable jobs, to be part of conversations and find engaging representations of their experience? It’s a similar question regarding arts access for people who are non-white, differently abled, queer. Does everyone have the same opportunity to freely express themselves? Of course not. Structurally, there are inequalities of power in the arts just as there are in many social spheres.

So when a work addresses one of these axioms of inequality, of course it’s likely to get at least someone (Jandek) thinking about these issues beyond the specific content of the piece. It should be applauded for that because, hey, it’s provoked this lively and intriguing debate.

At the same time, I don’t know that holding a single production to account for a far more endemic problem will get anyone very far. From the sounds of it, How to Lose Sight is coming from the right place and is by no means a trivialisation of blindness for the sake of ‘shock’ (and of course in its own way, shock can be useful too). Must everyone work of art solve every dilemma of representation an audience member might face? Nah. But to try, to even take a few baby steps, is encouraging.

That bigger picture is more interesting to me. As Cameron mentions above, when a company such as the MTC addresses the same issues it becomes quite urgent – perhaps the ripples are bigger or something. Independent companies often benignly reflect the inequalities of their bigger siblings, not by aspiring to become them (or stage the same kinds of work) but because they emerge into a world where imagining otherwise can be difficult. Do fewer people with disabilities feel empowered enough to take on life as an actor, or are they silenced by the lack of opportunity they see? And therefore, when casting a play about (say) blindness, do fewer outstanding blind actors present themselves for casting? If so, no individual is responsible here, and the problem becomes structural.

Which is a far, far thornier thing. But from my perspective, I do think that these structural issues are already being assaulted by some of the most interesting artists in the country right now, and huge shifts have been occurring in recent years. Maybe that’s why this discussion has been so informed and aware on the part of all involved. More please!

Thanks again for your thoughts.

It’s true – context is everything. And I am not suggesting a divorce or segregation between artistic merit and social context at all. I am saying, if the landscape (context) changed and was more diverse – then a bunch of sighted people creating a show about the fear of blindness or losing sight, would not be expected to be anything other than it is – ie it would not carry the expectation of being a show for vision impaired actors to tell their story about becoming blind.

I wish for the context to change.

But I don’t think artists should be limited to what they know – nor should writers be limited to what they want to write.

I think documentary and fiction are different. And they have different expectations and processes. I am suggesting that Jandek is expecting this to be a documentary when it is a fiction inspired by truth (isn’t all fiction inspired by truth?).

It’s true, Cameron that the “formula” can “apply it to just about anything. (”Welcome to my white man’s exploration of black womanhood!”” as you suggest – and well, it has been. Forever. Men have been writing female characters and imagining things women have said, and put sentences in the mouths of female actors forever – and there wasn’t a consultation process for Shakespeare when he was writing Ophelia, or Viola or Rosalind… why is it taboo for a director or an actor to imagine what it would be like to be blind? Why is it permissable for them to imagine what it is like to rape, or murder, or suicide, or cheat on their partner, or imagine they are a sailor? Or 24 years old? Or a mother of three? Or how about pretending they are English or American- we get plenty of that on our stages, don’t we?

Furthermore, I don’t think How To Lose Sight failed to address any contextual issues facing blind people – in fact the strong reaction by Jandek – a sighted audience member reacting to visual provocations, proves the point. Interestingly, Jandek is fighting a battle on behalf of the vision impaired community, without being asked to, and I doubt had consulted the members of the visually impaired community who attended the show in order to find out if they were upset or offended by the content. And to me I think that says a lot more about how we as sighted people treat the vision impaired and does nothing but re-enforce the message of the show.

I also think that the contextual questions of the show are essential – and for those that are curious to my reading of this:

The show challenges the audience through their experience of being deprived or limited in their access – at times being trapped physically in a room or tangled in a net. At times in a room, the audience can hear what’s going on – but can’t see what’s going on. And this is the sighted person’s blind experience. Sometimes during a scene in one room – we can hear (but not see) the events in the other room.

Largely the show represents the blind as normal people – who feel, imagine, dream, love, lust, wash up, make fools of themselves, make mistakes. And really the show is about dissolving the over-protective, earnest, overly PC hush hush taboo of disability.

What is essentially shocking about the show is how casual the subject matter is presented – this isn’t a horror/gore fest. This isn’t a series of interviews written and recited. This is work is a response to stories from people who live without sight – not a literal theatrical documentary of their lives.

And I think that’s where the reading of the piece by the audience needs to be informed…

Gus, this sentence makes it sound like ‘artistic merit’ is something that’s being suppressed here because of current political and social considerations, which when they disappear, will suddenly allow us to see and assess the art in its pure form. But ‘artistic merit’ isn’t divorced from political and social considerations, and can never be: neither in the reception of a work, nor in its creation. Context is always going to be there.

“But this is a work which does not claim to be anything more than a sighted person’s exploration into the world of the blind and that is an important distinction.”

Actually no, it isn’t. You go to great lengths to distinguish this piece from Community Theatre, but in fact, this was the exactly same defence offered by some for Site UnSeen. It isn’t valid in and of itself – not because Community Theatre and How To Lose Sight are different creatures entirely – but because you can use the same formula and apply it to just about anything. (“Welcome to my white man’s exploration of black womanhood!” I’d review a show like that, but if the art didn’t address the centuries of prejudice and oppression suffered by black women, prepare to get half a star.)

I haven’t seen How to Lose Sight but it sounds like a very risky idea. That doesn’t mean it’s bad art. The kinds of questions I’d be asking of it are all contextual: Does it acknowledge and dramatise the impossibility of its premise within the art itself? How are the social barriers to the blind represented in the show? and did I, as a member of the audience, come away with insight into them? Or is the work (as it exists in performance) essentially using the blind as window-dressing, for shock-value? etc, etc. All the stuff you’ve discussed above.