Perception, professionalism, and the arts - PART I

Something that has been bugging me for a while is how arts are perceived amongst certain people who consider themselves "in the know". I'm sure this is an equivalent problem in all disciplines; however, the issue is a bit more complex in the arts world where more can be based on value judgments. However, I'm not concerned about this phenomenon as much as I am concerned with the objective nature of the field.

There is a difference between things I "like" or "not like" and things I consider good. I may like a certain concert or performance because of different things: I like the music, it is pleasing to my ears; the production is visually pleasing, etc. These things are personal to me and my subjective experience; the feelings (and words) I express may or may not be valid to anyone else - and holding a subjective interpretation against someone is not only pointless, but it is also mean. However, there is a much more objective aspect to performing arts as well - was the work or play or music performed to the specifications and expectations of the creator? In performing Beethoven, is it permissible to make cuts to the music? How about a lesser known composer such as William Schuman? Is it allowed then? Or, delving into even more murky waters, is it permissible to cut Shakespeare? Or even to reword his plays to heighten a certain aspect? Or, on an even more modern stage, is it acceptable to change a work by Sondheim, or Schwartz to fit another's "vision"?

I realize that in some instances, the second example is the most tenuous of them all - not really with Shakespeare, but translations; one person may translate a foreign language text differently than another; inevitably different productions will arise. But I believe I am more concerned with the first and third examples. In the first case it is normally unthinkable to make changes in the canon of the symphonic genre. In the third case, it happens with more and more regularity. Directors pick and choose songs, make cuts at the barest whim - and present it as their "reimagining" of the property; or even worse, they claim they have "improved" upon the original.

As a professional musician and artist, this arrogance sits very poorly with me. Frankly, if a creator of a show had particular thoughts on whether something "worked" or not - things would not have been written as they were. So, why is it that so many people feel that they know more than some of these creators? These authors and composers, in most cases, have had thousands and thousands of performances. To sit and say that one person can objectively judge subjective matters not only degrades that performance, but also calls into question everything else that person has done. And don't feed me the line of "well, if we don't do it - the audience will be bored". That is even more perposterous than anything else; frankly, if you cannot performevery note and say every word without the fear of boring your audience, then not only have you picked the wrong property, but you might possibly be in the wrong field of the performing arts.

(To be continued...)