American Theatre: Fission/Fusion

editorial AMERICAN THEATRE: FISSION/FUSION In this issue of PAJ our concentration Is the pattern of fission/fusion in contemporary American theatre. By that we mean the collision of Ideas and structures, the regroupings, the conflicts, the results of aesthetic, social and economic forces that have influenced theatre and society In the last decade or more. Now we are coming out of a fusion phase that was consolidated in a more pluralistic era, and for the future we can only expect to enter a fission phase as the changing profile of society will force us into conflict with institutions that will become less libertarian, and special interest groups will fight for their specific views. With the threat of nuclear warfare, the revival of cold war politics, dwindling energy and food sources, the needs of artists will appear small indeed, even as the need for art, as the expression of individual imagination in the face of unimaginable horror, may grow greater. The fears raised in The Economics of Inspiration dialogue on funding and growth patterns in American theatre, featuring Ruth Mayleas, Jay Novick, and Joseph Zeigle.r, that NEA funding under the Reagan administration would be cut, have now been confirmed in the most recent economic plans announced by the government. The proposed cuts are 50 percent-more in percentage points than any other government program. But, along with these expressed fears of cutbacks is the equally justified view that government spending has gotten out of hand In its policies towards funding nonprofit organizations and artists. None of us in the arts wants to lose money, we all want to have more grants; yet it cannot be denied that getting grants has become a game-grantsmanship -and it has often been the case that more energy has gone into devising strategies for getting grants than in producing imaginative work or efficient ways to manage the monies received. These coming years are going to be difficult for all of us in the arts, financially and politically, but it will also force us to rethink the organization of arts funding, the status of the artist in society, management and business techniques, and the polemical issue of elitism versus populism. 6 We realize that this may be an unpopular, even controversial position, and we are not advocating that there be any censorship of artistic activity as government policy, only that, realistically, all artists and organizations cannot expect to be financially remunerated at the national level. That universities , local arts councils, and the corporate world have to share more of the burden of providing research and working costs for the large number of Americans who want to do creative, artistic work. That grants can no longer be awarded on the basis of artists' or institutions' sincerity, good Intentions or longing to create. In all areas of arts funding we have to rethink how much3s the national burden and how much the Individual's. Will the arts turn more political because of these fissionary forces? Probably , and healthily, yes. If Richard Schechner would have his way, PAJ would also show a more specific political vision. Our essential disagreement with Schechner, as he expressed his views in his article published here, is that PAJ was founded to reflect the pluralism of International theatre movements and artists, and critical writing, not to espouse a particular philosophy or school of thought. We like to see the ideological fervor and American tradition of messlanism in The Living Theatre, the precarious position of creating theatre In the midst of political turmoil in Poland, the playful, apolitical experimentation of the Judson Dance Theatre, and Sam Shepard in whose every play characters fight systemization, exist comfortably in the same Journal -because we think a theatre journal should be full of articles that contradict , complement, and reverberate against each other. Schechner has always operated under a system-be It the politics of ecstacy or cultural anthropology or Grotowski or his version of socialism, but we are not ideologues. We prefer to operate as philosophers without a system, In the admirable tradition of Harold Clurman-dubbed a "philosopher without a system"-to whom this Issue is dedicated. We are interested in too many artists, from...