Disqus - Latest Comments for mattsciple

Re: How America Lost Its Mind

mattsciple — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 14:52:27 -0000

I admire Kurt Anderson, I'm a big fan of his STUDIO 360, and I appreciate and agree with the thrust of this argument. That said, I think it also contains some important omissions and generalizations which undercut or at least muddy his central point. Most curious, to me, is his omission of relativism's roots in objective science (as opposed to the squishier realm of sociological theory.) Einstein isn't even mentioned, much less any of the many branches of Science currently engaged in detailing all the ways our individual brains actually do construct their own separate and non-intersecting realities, every moment of every day. In very real ways, modern neuroscience is finally catching up with many of the ancient religious beliefs and practices that could easily be lumped in with his wholesale dismissals--yoga, meditation, the roles of dreams in the processing of memories, the interdependence of the natural world, the indistinguishability of boundaries on a quantum level, etc. In other words, when tracing our culture's burial of objective truth, why ignore the fact that, in championing unknowability and doubt on every level, much of modern science is actually digging its own grave.

Which brings me to the second major distinction I wish he'd made, between Science as a canonical body of factual knowledge (which constantly invalidates and contradicts itself) and Science as a self-perpetuating process of self-correction and discovery. It's the latter which distinguishes science from religion and magical thinking: Science is not superior to superstition as an explanation for the way the world works because its facts and stories always match, but because they're constantly refined and, when necessary, replaced until they do.

Re: The Moving Company and the American Theatre’s Patriarchy

mattsciple — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 15:59:51 -0000

Somebody removed my comment *twice* by labeling it SPAM, which it clearly isn't. Please stop.

If you disagree with me, engage honestly.

Re: The Moving Company and the American Theatre’s Patriarchy

mattsciple — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:34:32 -0000

Whether or not one agrees with Kory’s assessment of REFUGIA, he has written a thoughtful piece of criticism of a difficult and overstuffed work of artistic expression. In her comments on this thread, Linda disagrees with Kory’s opinion; that’s all well and good, I’m glad she spoke up, and I don't want to pick on her. However, I wish that, in framing her thoughts, Linda had taken the same time and care he clearly did. Instead of actually addressing any of Kory’s points, nearly 2/3rds of her comment is a shotgun blast of presumption, condescension and insults. Showing the kind of knee-jerk defensiveness which unfortunately defines so much online criticism, she fails to consider any possible reasons for a well-reasoned opinion that differs from her own except "sour grapes," "artistic jealousy," "diminished capacity" or a lack of "understanding."

In her one specific criticism of Kory's review, Linda accuses him of carelessly insulting a text she found "rich with symbolic reference," assuming he hasn’t understood it because he writes "I have trouble connecting this experience [in a nursing home] to that of a refugee." Since I do know Kory, and since I have actually seen his work, I can state for the record that he doesn't lack the intellect to comprehend the literary devices and themes Linda found universal and powerful. He’s simply expressing disagreement with the equivalency they present, suggesting that the script did nothing to convince him otherwise. Then he continues, asking why these lines--which he calls, not confusing, but “heavy-handed and dense--” needed to be spoken, as is still so often the case, by an old, white man, when most of the characters whose experiences provide the context for his remarks were not allowed to speak for themselves.

I don’t presume to speak for Kory; he does that just fine, by himself. However, I feel the need to applaud the care and compassion with which he has presented his case. Instead of hurling insults or mocking the work of his fellow artists, he shares both his positive and negative responses to it, then carefully builds his case. Unlike Kory, I watched REFUGIA through the eyes of a middle-aged white man in possession of at least most of his faculties, but I asked many of the same questions he did. (So did my father. Universality achieved!) They’re good questions. In spite of (and even because of) REFUGIA’s obvious technical and artistic accomplishments, many of which I admired very much, they need to be asked, not dismissed, and they deserve answers.

Re: FringeFamous

mattsciple — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:08:16 -0000

Thanks Jay, I agree with almost every suggestion you make here. (still thinking about the Encore, which I agree, is currently pretty silly.) For the sake of discussion, I made an alternate suggestion on mnplaylist about rewarding the top shows, in which the top however many...say one per venue (or find a workable formula in which a 70 seat house can compete with a 400 seat house), and simply guarantee them a slot at next year's festival, PROVIDED--and I think this is important--provided they don't just reprise the same show. The argument I've heard against this, from Robin and others, is that we still want an unjuried festival. My understanding of "juried" means some kind of panel of experts would allow/disallow shows based on standards they would decide vs a simple popularity contest. Your idea is an interesting variation on that.

I'm also curious as to whether anyone else thinks we should limit the number of shows one person can be involved with? And if anyone else wonders how many lottery entries someone has to make, statistically, to get into the Fringe multiple times every single year?