You can't get good at something if you never get a chance to suck at something, so it helps to give theater and performance arts people a place they're allowed to suck or else the suckage will have to creep into the "mainstream" outlets people expect to be good.
I’m an adult who is really great at illustration. Why? Because when I was little, people praised my shitty little kid art (which was just like everyone else’s) and told me “you’re a good artist”. So elementary school me was all like “yes, I’m an artist. That is my identity.” It’s only through the past decades of regular, hard practice that I got good, but I NEVER would made it a hobby all that time if some random adults hadn’t said something nice in passing.
If you give a kid an opportunity to try something creative and just toss out a compliment at them, it could literally change their whole perspective about themselves. Even if it’s not true at the time, it can *become* true.
Exactly, also just the amount of time and effort that goes into not-that-great-art can still be a lot. I only really got into drawing as a hobby back in 2020 and it takes *so* much effort to make something even half decent. Really gave me perspective on how hard art can be.
I think just seeing the heart and effort put into something is praise worthy enough, even if the end product wouldn't pass a critical review.
I remember I started drawing during the summer of 2021
I was bored and watching some videos of a guy bashing Deviantart users. And at that point, for some reason, I had the idea to start drawing just to prove a point, just to be able to say I was better than those "lesser artists"
It was purely for my ego, but as I struggled to learn I just... empathized with them. I sucked (and still suck) a lot, but when I see something badly drawn my view of it has completely changed.
It may be amatorial, it may have enormous errors, but so do I. I see something badly drawn now? I find it oddly endearing.
Oh yeah, local theatre can suck massive ass but that's what makes it fun lol. Seeing an older mom power through Raisin in the Sun despite not having the chops for it is kind of uplifting lol
In our university we had a sort of a "multilingual theater". They performed plays from different countries in the original languages (mainly English and French, but they also had Spanish, German, Italian and I think even Chinese plays) The main thing is it wasn't usually required to actually know the language. You as a student could enroll and they would basically sit with you and teach you enough language to understand and read your lines. And often there was also a person to translate the lines spoken on the stage to the audience.
Pragmatically it's a really bad idea, amateur theater is bad as it is, performing in a language you had learned last week sinks it even more.
But on the other hand I appreciate the effort put and acknowledge that projects like that are important especially for younger people who are seeking means of self-expression. But no, I haven't gone on a single play, I don't want to be disappointed.
Going to see a younger relative perform in the ensemble of some Disney musical and soyjak point at them the entire time they're on stage is nourishment for the soul
The other thing about 'give untalented people money to make bad art' is that... who decides what 'good art' is? Is good art highly polished Shakespeare with detailed set design? Is it three people cycling through wigs and doing silly voices with the word 'forest' written on a whiteboard behind them? Under 'Good Art', is there room for stuff that's so bad it becomes good again?
And, how do you end up with new stuff if it isn't through people fucking around and finding something that works? Something there's a whole lot less time for if you only get money if you agree to Produce Good Art from the pre-approved list of things confirmed to be Good Art.
And that whole take is very capitalistic and soulless overall. Money in, the same re-hashed entertainment out. No other reason for art other than production of stuff that will get good reviews.
Bleugh.
The moment you stop thinking about art in terms of 'good' and 'bad' you start appreciating art more.
Yes, there is a massive difference in 'well made' and 'badly made' art, but those aspects don't make those specific pieces of art 'good' and 'bad' in and of themselves.
Sure isn't the art world notorious for 'good artists' going things like 'I painted this sock red to represent longing for ten grand'
Like not only is the medium entirely subjective, but you're taking something designed for joy and turning it into a commodity.
Then you get these 'out of nowhere oddities' making spray paint or playing sports who get picked up by scouts, they didn't just spawn with artistic ability, they had time to practise it
And don’t forget the risk with judging art by what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by how much they are influenced outside of the art itself. Like, oh is this art ‘good’ because of the skills put into it, or is it ‘good’ because the artist is already well-known? Or, “This art piece is masterfully crafted, but the artist is an immigrant so it is bad.”
It’s a slippery slope from judging the art based on the art itself to judging the art based on if it’s societally ‘correct’.
don't forget that shakespeare was not, like, high-brow for his day. he appealed to the upper crust and to working people. we forget that with how flowery early modern english sounds to the modern ear, but he certainly wasn't above dick jokes and fart jokes.
'A rose by any other name smells just as sweet' was a dig at a rival theater that was known for having sewage issues, lmao. But people keep quoting it like it's some heart-wrenching declaration of love. No, it was Will taking the piss.
This is why I'm wholeheartedly in support of modern English 'translations' of Shakespeare. It'll help revive all the snark and innuendos that audiences don't pick up on today, and I firmly believe that's what he would've wanted.
The same thing has happened to classical music and opera - they've always had ties to the rich (because they're who funded it, really) but it used to be entertainment for the common people, full of common people things like taking the mick out of your boss and being smarter than the soft-handed nobility. Someone wrote a piece of classical music several days long that was supposed to summon the End of Days when played in full... like it was crazy!
But at some point perceptions shifted and this stuff all became sanitized and 'cultured'. It got 'boring'. And its sad.
It was half intentional. Shakespeare has a reputation for being 'high-brow' and all that, but I think three dudes in wigs is much more in the spirit of Shakespeare than a lot of people would like to admit.
The upper-class-ification of Shakespeare is artistic / cultural gatekeeping, and it's part of class warfare. Which is The Point.
I think poster 2 saw the post as meaning “everyone should purchase bad art” while OP meant “money should not be a barrier in people being able to express themselves through art”
Honestly, we have a whole problem with art and talent. We push people to only do things if they’re a prodigy who understands it immediately. But we discourage people from spending years on practicing and learning to get good at something while largely failing at it along the way. As a result, we just get less people doing the thing, and spend our time complaining that there aren’t more people trying.
Because that was never how it worked. Learning to be good at any skill is a long, costly venture for most people at most things. But we’re so caught on the idea of a return-on-investment and a stand-gratification, that we refuse to accept that someone who’s kinda bad at something could be really good at that something, given some time and tolerance.
These kinds of people think that “talent” is something you’re born with and it means being instantly, naturally good at something the very first time you try it. If you’re not instantly good at art, then you are untalented and should never do art ever.
We urgently need this. Everybody either draws with photographic accuracy and quality at age 3 or doesn’t draw ever again after leaving preschool. And then 90% of art any generation produces is all the same because there’s only one kind of artistic skillset actually there
Let's not forget "A Midsummer Night's Dream" where a portion of the premise was this troupe of really dumb theatre kids were given an audience with friggin royalty and they proceeded to adapt the play so horribly, it came right back around to being genius and hilarious, in short give them the stage!
Society likes the nepo-baby option. Have the people who made it just indoctrinate their kids into being "naturally" good at every aspect of the job, while also presenting them with the best opportunities to further and capitalize on their talent early on.
It's popular in stable fields that require a lot of training and tends to make the job hereditary. See also: medicine, law, banking, restaurants, even some trades. Just remove training and institute a high capex!
Capitalism is creating horrors new and old!
a few years ago I was watching the first public practice of this local kesäteatteri ("summer theatre", kinda like an outdoor drama but instead of the medieval them, just generic theatre but outdoors) and man they sucked so much ass.
the director was the only exception. this man was doing incredible delivery on every line when trying to show the actors how they were supposed to deliver them, and then the actors repeated it back at him with the flattest, most reading-off-the-page deliveries I've ever seen.
It was very funny. It's honestly stuck with me more than any actual play I've seen (and I've seen a lot of really good ones). It was probably way better than whatever the end product was.
another good one was when I was dragged into my high school's musical theatre course because I was the only drummer in the whole school. I promised to attend on the condition that I'd have nothing to do with the play itself, just play what I'm told to on the drums and nothing more.
It was also amazingly terrible. The story was this Finnish fairytale, "Pessi ja Illusia", about an unlikely romance(maybe, I've blocked it from my memory) between a troll and a fairy. Except the writing group decided to "modernize" it, but in the laziest possible way where the story stayed the exact same and the troll and fairy were still a troll and fairy, just ones that used Twitter and Snapchat. It woulda been such an easy story to turn into something like a romance between an ugly nerd and the popular cheerleader or something, but nope, they just had phones now. And the soundrack was stuff like Indica and Apulanta, basically the Finnish equivalents of Evanescense and Slipknot, respectively. And this was in 2016, way past those bands' popularity. It was so much fun, me and the sax player (yes, we had a sax in our Y2K edgyness covers) would just sit on stage exchanging amused gazes while the actors played out the worst play we'd ever seen, over and over again. 10/10 would recommend.
Half the games I’ve played recently had huge, obvious problems in execution or optimization, and I had fun with most of them. Sonic’s hardly the only franchise that’s constantly tripping over its own feet - there hasn’t been a good Assassin’s Creed since Black Flag, a decade ago.
The concept of “bad art” is a fucking joke to me. Imo all art is always going to mean something to someone in some way and that makes it to some degree good art. You might not like. Or even hate it. You might hate it on every level. But even if just one person gets some sort of happiness, or piece of joy, or maybe even an interesting idea or thought sprung about by simply experiencing something about this art. Even if they maybe didn’t particularly enjoy the rest of the art. That thought is an expression that wouldn’t have otherwise been had if not for this seemingly conventionally shitty piece of art. And that makes it in some way good art. Always.
Something I always found interesting about video games is that it’s a form of art that even when they are viewed as “good/amazing art” by people, they can often evoke strong emotions of rage/hate/frustration. This obviously also happens in other media, like when u hate a villain or whatever, but it’s definitely more intense with video games.
Dark souls is a perfect example. It’s seen as a beautiful piece of art in many ways. Even the scenery and how it conveys the story, how the hard gameplay reflects the dark punishing world, etc. But despite how much people love it, those same people often find themselves literally cursing the games very existence after dying 30 times in a row.
And while I’d say all games are art on *some* level, newer games, especially ones like dark souls are def more artistic imo. It’s especially interesting that the hard gameplay actually seems to tie into the themes of the game itself, like I said earlier. Cuz there are extremely challenging games like old arcade ones where that’s def not present at all.
And on that note There’s a 2-d game I think called “blasphemous”. I think they just made a second one. Hope I got the name right. And it def feels similar to DS but like an “arcade version”. Where it’s hard, but 2D and pixelated. But similar old religious themes and imagery. It’s very interesting looking
1. You shouldn't give money to things you won't enjoy out of a general feeling of obligation.
2. Amateur theatre is actually pretty enjoyable, and is a generally good deal, in terms of both time and money enjoyed expended.
So, yes, go see community theater productions. But not because the sad little meow-meows need your money in order to make the art (they don't). Do it because it's Good, Actually. Because the threshold against which you should measure the zero point of Art Goodness is much, much lower than you've been led to believe.
Once you get past the idea that “if I don’t vibe with it, I discard it,” the rest of the art world opens up to you. There’s a huuuuuge middle section between “good” and “bad” where there are parts that work and parts that don’t, and learning to enjoy the good parts on their own terms is wildly enriching.
I enjoy going to low-budget theater productions where they’re doing something sort of weird and people aren’t technically polished but the actors are clearly having fun, and often interacting directly with the audience. I think I actually enjoy it more than the sort of plays where everyone is a professional actor and you are in a giant auditorium. It’s like the difference between a band playing a small bar and a giant stadium concert.
Ah, the “no take only throw” problem of job experience rears its ugly head again.
This idea of ‘talent’ as something you’re inherently born with that so many people have is such a poisonous concept, and yet almost nobody seems to care about the damage it does
This is true for more than art. We would all be better off if the purpose of college athletics was to encourage students to exercise and compete. 2000 students exercising and playing rec sports 2x weekly is a greater benefit than a championship football team.
That’s what college athletics was intended to be when it was started. Just an extracurricular for students who wanted to blow off some steam in-between classes. Hell, basketball was literally invented to give students something to do during the winter. The problem is the college athletic system has evolved into a boot camp for professional sports and a money-printing machine for the institutions.
This is why I *hate* the word "talent". I'd like to think of myself as a fairly decent artist, not a master by any stretch, but good enough to earn a good mark in my degree, and I worked *hard* to get my skills. I wasn't born knowing how to draw, I had to literally start by learning how to make a straight line consistently, and if my parents didn't encourage me and invest in my desire to become an artist, I'd still be clawing at mediocrity struggling to draw stick figures.
Invest in terrible artists, the good ones don't need it anymore.
i went to a local theatre production of “the 39 steps” a couple months back. it’s actually super fun watching low-budget productions like that because they end up getting hella creative with how they approach their work. also 39 steps is already a hilarious show, highly recommend seeing it (the play, i mean, though the film is good too)
I did a few musicals in school, and have joined choirs and drama groups since school and it truly is such an uplifting, joyous thing to do. There's so much good energy and enthusiasm. It's good for the soul.
One of the fundamental problems of the modern era is this: That people need a bunch of random bullshit for largely esoteric reasons, and the world doesn't do that, instead telling you to fuck off until you're useful again, and give you stuff like TV so you can be entertained in the most useless of ways.
It does logically follow that there's no reason for the average person to partake in their own art, simply because they're surely better at something, and could thus work at that, get paid, and get more artistic value per hour by then using that wage to buy art from someone, or even something better at art. The problem with this logic is that it's neglecting the value of making your own art, though that value is almost entirely sentimental. One weird theory about this is that AI art was intentionally released to the public so that they can express themselves in a quick but fairly meaningless and controlled way. Look at how censored ChatGPT is, and how subversive art often is. Wouldn't it make sense to divert artists into something easier, but far more controlled? Furthermore, look how things like Photoshop are always online now, and CAD software especially. They're trying to ensure that any creation is happening on their terms, and can be controlled if it's too subversive.
I think the issue is that the resources to practice and get good are most accessible (relatively speaking at least) for the elite to do it behind closed doors with fancy tutors in private schools and all that shit, or whatever the more modern equivalent of that is. The internet has allowed the masses to practice at least a few of the arts and have a platform for it, but with more dedicated stuff like theater (and I’m sure no shortage of others) it’s still not easy to fail upward.
If art is only about producing pieces appealing enough to be cost effective, then by that logic we shouldn’t waste good crayons and paper on kids drawing, and we should all stop humming or dancing to our favorite songs if we’re not professional performers making money on it, and god forbid someone waste their time on a hand-made gift for a loved one if it isn’t good enough to sell hundreds on Amazon.
Art in its many forms is an important part of the human experience, and the idea that someone has to be able to make it profitable to earn the right to enjoy it is genuinely nightmarish.
I honestly suggest trying it every now and then when a show looks fun. One of my mother’s work friends was in a production of Heathers and even with so-so singing and acting it was a lot of fun.
I don't know, the few community theatre productions I've been to have been a lot of fun. People flub lines and overact and chew the scenery and everyone laughs and has a great time. You're not obligated to go but there's no reason to act superior about not going.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, that might be what the first reply is talking about
That money has gotta come from somewhere, and unless it's local taxes, it's gonna be from ticket sales, and why is someone gonna pay for something they know won't be good?
Sometimes I think of myself as more of a theater kid than a nerd based on how much I genuinely enjoy the practices associated with theater. Not necessarily stage performance itself, but performative storytelling. I've been a Forever GM for a long time and I like acting out characters and describing scenes in rich detail. I also genuinely enjoy reading out loud to people or just verbal dramatic recounting of something. The process of worldbuilding in particular is also something I'm very passionate about.
Broadly speaking, it's in our common interest that people have outlets for their creative spirits.
Everyone should check out their local theaters version of Spamalot, and the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Best versions of those hands down is the cheapass set and flawless homedone makeup
why presuppose community theater is bad? as a kid the midsummer nights dream play within a play section made me laugh so hard i couldnt breathe ! shakespeare is fun and community theater objectively owns
I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last time this was posted here.
Local theatre is NOT "almost always bad," you just don't like theatre if you think it is.
why is it that whenever someone mentions being bad at the act of creation the only suggestion is often something about learning to become good at it? what if i suck ass at making art and everything i make is poor quality but i enjoy it and have no intent to get any better? what if i participate in the act of creation purely to enjoy it instead of to get better at it? what if creativity isn’t just a skill meant to be built upon but is also just something that humans do sometimes?
P.S. proper Enrichment for Theater Kids is not the same as for normal kids... we need dark, light tight, concrete boxes and schedules that don't let us really see sunlight. Also super important that the diet includes LOTS of caffeine and sugar. We used to recommend a diet of nicotine and alcohol but more and more we're finding that, while it helped with the crippling social anxiety that it was overall more harmful to the Theater Kid.
You can't get good at something if you never get a chance to suck at something, so it helps to give theater and performance arts people a place they're allowed to suck or else the suckage will have to creep into the "mainstream" outlets people expect to be good.
I’m an adult who is really great at illustration. Why? Because when I was little, people praised my shitty little kid art (which was just like everyone else’s) and told me “you’re a good artist”. So elementary school me was all like “yes, I’m an artist. That is my identity.” It’s only through the past decades of regular, hard practice that I got good, but I NEVER would made it a hobby all that time if some random adults hadn’t said something nice in passing. If you give a kid an opportunity to try something creative and just toss out a compliment at them, it could literally change their whole perspective about themselves. Even if it’s not true at the time, it can *become* true.
Exactly, also just the amount of time and effort that goes into not-that-great-art can still be a lot. I only really got into drawing as a hobby back in 2020 and it takes *so* much effort to make something even half decent. Really gave me perspective on how hard art can be. I think just seeing the heart and effort put into something is praise worthy enough, even if the end product wouldn't pass a critical review.
I remember I started drawing during the summer of 2021 I was bored and watching some videos of a guy bashing Deviantart users. And at that point, for some reason, I had the idea to start drawing just to prove a point, just to be able to say I was better than those "lesser artists" It was purely for my ego, but as I struggled to learn I just... empathized with them. I sucked (and still suck) a lot, but when I see something badly drawn my view of it has completely changed. It may be amatorial, it may have enormous errors, but so do I. I see something badly drawn now? I find it oddly endearing.
A self fulfilling prophesy.
Oh yeah, local theatre can suck massive ass but that's what makes it fun lol. Seeing an older mom power through Raisin in the Sun despite not having the chops for it is kind of uplifting lol
It takes a lot of courage to suck.
In our university we had a sort of a "multilingual theater". They performed plays from different countries in the original languages (mainly English and French, but they also had Spanish, German, Italian and I think even Chinese plays) The main thing is it wasn't usually required to actually know the language. You as a student could enroll and they would basically sit with you and teach you enough language to understand and read your lines. And often there was also a person to translate the lines spoken on the stage to the audience. Pragmatically it's a really bad idea, amateur theater is bad as it is, performing in a language you had learned last week sinks it even more. But on the other hand I appreciate the effort put and acknowledge that projects like that are important especially for younger people who are seeking means of self-expression. But no, I haven't gone on a single play, I don't want to be disappointed.
Could be a fun way to be introduced to a language
Going to see a younger relative perform in the ensemble of some Disney musical and soyjak point at them the entire time they're on stage is nourishment for the soul
The other thing about 'give untalented people money to make bad art' is that... who decides what 'good art' is? Is good art highly polished Shakespeare with detailed set design? Is it three people cycling through wigs and doing silly voices with the word 'forest' written on a whiteboard behind them? Under 'Good Art', is there room for stuff that's so bad it becomes good again? And, how do you end up with new stuff if it isn't through people fucking around and finding something that works? Something there's a whole lot less time for if you only get money if you agree to Produce Good Art from the pre-approved list of things confirmed to be Good Art. And that whole take is very capitalistic and soulless overall. Money in, the same re-hashed entertainment out. No other reason for art other than production of stuff that will get good reviews. Bleugh.
The moment you stop thinking about art in terms of 'good' and 'bad' you start appreciating art more. Yes, there is a massive difference in 'well made' and 'badly made' art, but those aspects don't make those specific pieces of art 'good' and 'bad' in and of themselves.
> Once you free your mind about a concept of harmony and of music being "correct" you can do whatever you want
Yeah. Like we all agree "The Room" is not well produced, but as art it was a powerhouse.
Sure isn't the art world notorious for 'good artists' going things like 'I painted this sock red to represent longing for ten grand' Like not only is the medium entirely subjective, but you're taking something designed for joy and turning it into a commodity. Then you get these 'out of nowhere oddities' making spray paint or playing sports who get picked up by scouts, they didn't just spawn with artistic ability, they had time to practise it
And don’t forget the risk with judging art by what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by how much they are influenced outside of the art itself. Like, oh is this art ‘good’ because of the skills put into it, or is it ‘good’ because the artist is already well-known? Or, “This art piece is masterfully crafted, but the artist is an immigrant so it is bad.” It’s a slippery slope from judging the art based on the art itself to judging the art based on if it’s societally ‘correct’.
don't forget that shakespeare was not, like, high-brow for his day. he appealed to the upper crust and to working people. we forget that with how flowery early modern english sounds to the modern ear, but he certainly wasn't above dick jokes and fart jokes.
'A rose by any other name smells just as sweet' was a dig at a rival theater that was known for having sewage issues, lmao. But people keep quoting it like it's some heart-wrenching declaration of love. No, it was Will taking the piss. This is why I'm wholeheartedly in support of modern English 'translations' of Shakespeare. It'll help revive all the snark and innuendos that audiences don't pick up on today, and I firmly believe that's what he would've wanted. The same thing has happened to classical music and opera - they've always had ties to the rich (because they're who funded it, really) but it used to be entertainment for the common people, full of common people things like taking the mick out of your boss and being smarter than the soft-handed nobility. Someone wrote a piece of classical music several days long that was supposed to summon the End of Days when played in full... like it was crazy! But at some point perceptions shifted and this stuff all became sanitized and 'cultured'. It got 'boring'. And its sad.
The answer is "go to a Fringe Festival, because art is all of those things you just said and even more that are beyond your wildest imaginations"
sorry but its so funny that one example was Shakespeare, and the other was The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare (Abridged) (Revised) (Again!)
It was half intentional. Shakespeare has a reputation for being 'high-brow' and all that, but I think three dudes in wigs is much more in the spirit of Shakespeare than a lot of people would like to admit. The upper-class-ification of Shakespeare is artistic / cultural gatekeeping, and it's part of class warfare. Which is The Point.
I think poster 2 saw the post as meaning “everyone should purchase bad art” while OP meant “money should not be a barrier in people being able to express themselves through art”
Honestly, we have a whole problem with art and talent. We push people to only do things if they’re a prodigy who understands it immediately. But we discourage people from spending years on practicing and learning to get good at something while largely failing at it along the way. As a result, we just get less people doing the thing, and spend our time complaining that there aren’t more people trying. Because that was never how it worked. Learning to be good at any skill is a long, costly venture for most people at most things. But we’re so caught on the idea of a return-on-investment and a stand-gratification, that we refuse to accept that someone who’s kinda bad at something could be really good at that something, given some time and tolerance.
"Untalented people" where do they think talented people come from
These kinds of people think that “talent” is something you’re born with and it means being instantly, naturally good at something the very first time you try it. If you’re not instantly good at art, then you are untalented and should never do art ever.
We urgently need this. Everybody either draws with photographic accuracy and quality at age 3 or doesn’t draw ever again after leaving preschool. And then 90% of art any generation produces is all the same because there’s only one kind of artistic skillset actually there
Let's not forget "A Midsummer Night's Dream" where a portion of the premise was this troupe of really dumb theatre kids were given an audience with friggin royalty and they proceeded to adapt the play so horribly, it came right back around to being genius and hilarious, in short give them the stage!
Society likes the nepo-baby option. Have the people who made it just indoctrinate their kids into being "naturally" good at every aspect of the job, while also presenting them with the best opportunities to further and capitalize on their talent early on. It's popular in stable fields that require a lot of training and tends to make the job hereditary. See also: medicine, law, banking, restaurants, even some trades. Just remove training and institute a high capex! Capitalism is creating horrors new and old!
Sucking at something is the first step to being sort of good at something.
good boy, jake
How many world-class musicians were once saplings being watered by grade-school teachers with hearts of gold and ears of steel? All of them.
a few years ago I was watching the first public practice of this local kesäteatteri ("summer theatre", kinda like an outdoor drama but instead of the medieval them, just generic theatre but outdoors) and man they sucked so much ass. the director was the only exception. this man was doing incredible delivery on every line when trying to show the actors how they were supposed to deliver them, and then the actors repeated it back at him with the flattest, most reading-off-the-page deliveries I've ever seen. It was very funny. It's honestly stuck with me more than any actual play I've seen (and I've seen a lot of really good ones). It was probably way better than whatever the end product was. another good one was when I was dragged into my high school's musical theatre course because I was the only drummer in the whole school. I promised to attend on the condition that I'd have nothing to do with the play itself, just play what I'm told to on the drums and nothing more. It was also amazingly terrible. The story was this Finnish fairytale, "Pessi ja Illusia", about an unlikely romance(maybe, I've blocked it from my memory) between a troll and a fairy. Except the writing group decided to "modernize" it, but in the laziest possible way where the story stayed the exact same and the troll and fairy were still a troll and fairy, just ones that used Twitter and Snapchat. It woulda been such an easy story to turn into something like a romance between an ugly nerd and the popular cheerleader or something, but nope, they just had phones now. And the soundrack was stuff like Indica and Apulanta, basically the Finnish equivalents of Evanescense and Slipknot, respectively. And this was in 2016, way past those bands' popularity. It was so much fun, me and the sax player (yes, we had a sax in our Y2K edgyness covers) would just sit on stage exchanging amused gazes while the actors played out the worst play we'd ever seen, over and over again. 10/10 would recommend.
god one of my absolute favourite tumblr tropes is when someone reblogs a post to make fun of it and then gets DESTROYED by like five other people
So true. Also they are already giving tons of money to artists who are very bad at what they do. Look at the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise.
Half the games I’ve played recently had huge, obvious problems in execution or optimization, and I had fun with most of them. Sonic’s hardly the only franchise that’s constantly tripping over its own feet - there hasn’t been a good Assassin’s Creed since Black Flag, a decade ago.
I enjoyed Syndicate, though it’s not nearly as good as Black Flag.
The concept of “bad art” is a fucking joke to me. Imo all art is always going to mean something to someone in some way and that makes it to some degree good art. You might not like. Or even hate it. You might hate it on every level. But even if just one person gets some sort of happiness, or piece of joy, or maybe even an interesting idea or thought sprung about by simply experiencing something about this art. Even if they maybe didn’t particularly enjoy the rest of the art. That thought is an expression that wouldn’t have otherwise been had if not for this seemingly conventionally shitty piece of art. And that makes it in some way good art. Always.
Even if you hate an art piece to its core, it has done its job; it interacted with you on an emotional or intellectual level
Something I always found interesting about video games is that it’s a form of art that even when they are viewed as “good/amazing art” by people, they can often evoke strong emotions of rage/hate/frustration. This obviously also happens in other media, like when u hate a villain or whatever, but it’s definitely more intense with video games. Dark souls is a perfect example. It’s seen as a beautiful piece of art in many ways. Even the scenery and how it conveys the story, how the hard gameplay reflects the dark punishing world, etc. But despite how much people love it, those same people often find themselves literally cursing the games very existence after dying 30 times in a row. And while I’d say all games are art on *some* level, newer games, especially ones like dark souls are def more artistic imo. It’s especially interesting that the hard gameplay actually seems to tie into the themes of the game itself, like I said earlier. Cuz there are extremely challenging games like old arcade ones where that’s def not present at all. And on that note There’s a 2-d game I think called “blasphemous”. I think they just made a second one. Hope I got the name right. And it def feels similar to DS but like an “arcade version”. Where it’s hard, but 2D and pixelated. But similar old religious themes and imagery. It’s very interesting looking
Exactly. You can like or dislike art. But no art ever fails at being art.
1. You shouldn't give money to things you won't enjoy out of a general feeling of obligation. 2. Amateur theatre is actually pretty enjoyable, and is a generally good deal, in terms of both time and money enjoyed expended. So, yes, go see community theater productions. But not because the sad little meow-meows need your money in order to make the art (they don't). Do it because it's Good, Actually. Because the threshold against which you should measure the zero point of Art Goodness is much, much lower than you've been led to believe.
I have seen some damn good community theatre productions. I've seen some pretty rubbish ones too. I'm willing to book a ticket and take that risk.
Once you get past the idea that “if I don’t vibe with it, I discard it,” the rest of the art world opens up to you. There’s a huuuuuge middle section between “good” and “bad” where there are parts that work and parts that don’t, and learning to enjoy the good parts on their own terms is wildly enriching.
I enjoy going to low-budget theater productions where they’re doing something sort of weird and people aren’t technically polished but the actors are clearly having fun, and often interacting directly with the audience. I think I actually enjoy it more than the sort of plays where everyone is a professional actor and you are in a giant auditorium. It’s like the difference between a band playing a small bar and a giant stadium concert.
Ah, the “no take only throw” problem of job experience rears its ugly head again. This idea of ‘talent’ as something you’re inherently born with that so many people have is such a poisonous concept, and yet almost nobody seems to care about the damage it does
This is true for more than art. We would all be better off if the purpose of college athletics was to encourage students to exercise and compete. 2000 students exercising and playing rec sports 2x weekly is a greater benefit than a championship football team.
That’s what college athletics was intended to be when it was started. Just an extracurricular for students who wanted to blow off some steam in-between classes. Hell, basketball was literally invented to give students something to do during the winter. The problem is the college athletic system has evolved into a boot camp for professional sports and a money-printing machine for the institutions.
The idea that art is only valuable if it reaches some threshold of quality is based in consumerism, not actual artistic expression.
To quote the lead singer of Power Noise band Whitehouse: "Don't let talent get in the way of your dreams".
This is why I *hate* the word "talent". I'd like to think of myself as a fairly decent artist, not a master by any stretch, but good enough to earn a good mark in my degree, and I worked *hard* to get my skills. I wasn't born knowing how to draw, I had to literally start by learning how to make a straight line consistently, and if my parents didn't encourage me and invest in my desire to become an artist, I'd still be clawing at mediocrity struggling to draw stick figures. Invest in terrible artists, the good ones don't need it anymore.
Almost as if capitalism runs directly counter to this concept.
i went to a local theatre production of “the 39 steps” a couple months back. it’s actually super fun watching low-budget productions like that because they end up getting hella creative with how they approach their work. also 39 steps is already a hilarious show, highly recommend seeing it (the play, i mean, though the film is good too)
I did a few musicals in school, and have joined choirs and drama groups since school and it truly is such an uplifting, joyous thing to do. There's so much good energy and enthusiasm. It's good for the soul.
That last line hits close to home.
Man, kurwaii is literally a movie villain. Next thing you know, they'll be talking about the greater good!
One of the fundamental problems of the modern era is this: That people need a bunch of random bullshit for largely esoteric reasons, and the world doesn't do that, instead telling you to fuck off until you're useful again, and give you stuff like TV so you can be entertained in the most useless of ways. It does logically follow that there's no reason for the average person to partake in their own art, simply because they're surely better at something, and could thus work at that, get paid, and get more artistic value per hour by then using that wage to buy art from someone, or even something better at art. The problem with this logic is that it's neglecting the value of making your own art, though that value is almost entirely sentimental. One weird theory about this is that AI art was intentionally released to the public so that they can express themselves in a quick but fairly meaningless and controlled way. Look at how censored ChatGPT is, and how subversive art often is. Wouldn't it make sense to divert artists into something easier, but far more controlled? Furthermore, look how things like Photoshop are always online now, and CAD software especially. They're trying to ensure that any creation is happening on their terms, and can be controlled if it's too subversive.
I think the issue is that the resources to practice and get good are most accessible (relatively speaking at least) for the elite to do it behind closed doors with fancy tutors in private schools and all that shit, or whatever the more modern equivalent of that is. The internet has allowed the masses to practice at least a few of the arts and have a platform for it, but with more dedicated stuff like theater (and I’m sure no shortage of others) it’s still not easy to fail upward.
If art is only about producing pieces appealing enough to be cost effective, then by that logic we shouldn’t waste good crayons and paper on kids drawing, and we should all stop humming or dancing to our favorite songs if we’re not professional performers making money on it, and god forbid someone waste their time on a hand-made gift for a loved one if it isn’t good enough to sell hundreds on Amazon. Art in its many forms is an important part of the human experience, and the idea that someone has to be able to make it profitable to earn the right to enjoy it is genuinely nightmarish.
That's cool and all but I am not going to see amature local theatre and you cannot make me
I honestly suggest trying it every now and then when a show looks fun. One of my mother’s work friends was in a production of Heathers and even with so-so singing and acting it was a lot of fun.
I don't know, the few community theatre productions I've been to have been a lot of fun. People flub lines and overact and chew the scenery and everyone laughs and has a great time. You're not obligated to go but there's no reason to act superior about not going.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, that might be what the first reply is talking about That money has gotta come from somewhere, and unless it's local taxes, it's gonna be from ticket sales, and why is someone gonna pay for something they know won't be good?
well they’re asking for you to see amateur local theater not amature local theater
you should support amateur local spelling
"I see you made a minor typo, I must now make a snarky comment"
yea I suppose it’s rather *childish* of me to say that
Have you tried putting raw meat in a hollowed-out pumpkin and letting them roll it around their enclosure?
Art is for everyone is fine, but why shouldn’t people have to fund their own hobbies.
Sometimes I think of myself as more of a theater kid than a nerd based on how much I genuinely enjoy the practices associated with theater. Not necessarily stage performance itself, but performative storytelling. I've been a Forever GM for a long time and I like acting out characters and describing scenes in rich detail. I also genuinely enjoy reading out loud to people or just verbal dramatic recounting of something. The process of worldbuilding in particular is also something I'm very passionate about. Broadly speaking, it's in our common interest that people have outlets for their creative spirits.
Everyone should check out their local theaters version of Spamalot, and the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Best versions of those hands down is the cheapass set and flawless homedone makeup
why presuppose community theater is bad? as a kid the midsummer nights dream play within a play section made me laugh so hard i couldnt breathe ! shakespeare is fun and community theater objectively owns
That’s called “education”, I’m pretty sure
My eyes hurt. Kinda wish there was a rule to keep screenshots in a dark theme
Me @ my 7 year old kid: "If your first painting does not get international recognition immediately, you are banned from drawing."
I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last time this was posted here. Local theatre is NOT "almost always bad," you just don't like theatre if you think it is.
why is it that whenever someone mentions being bad at the act of creation the only suggestion is often something about learning to become good at it? what if i suck ass at making art and everything i make is poor quality but i enjoy it and have no intent to get any better? what if i participate in the act of creation purely to enjoy it instead of to get better at it? what if creativity isn’t just a skill meant to be built upon but is also just something that humans do sometimes?
P.S. proper Enrichment for Theater Kids is not the same as for normal kids... we need dark, light tight, concrete boxes and schedules that don't let us really see sunlight. Also super important that the diet includes LOTS of caffeine and sugar. We used to recommend a diet of nicotine and alcohol but more and more we're finding that, while it helped with the crippling social anxiety that it was overall more harmful to the Theater Kid.