Recently, I saw a play I had been looking forward to for a couple months now. The play centered on race, particularly being a young black male, utilizing iconography that is haunting us all as of late: hoodies, skittles, sweet tea. A live feed video from overhead the actors is projected on the scrim behind them, tapping into the idea of surveillance, incarceration. All the pieces were there, even the actual words were there, but something felt amiss.
I was accompanied to the play by one of the artists I am working with currently. We’ve only known each other for two weeks now and in a purely professional role. Hardly something I would say is a friendship, and definitely not a comfortable enough relationship to be having intense conversations regarding race and privilege. I am a white cis-passing femme, and he is a young black man. Sitting next to each other in the theater felt like the gift of discomfort, as I thought about he was experiencing what was transpiring on stage (and subsequently in the world) so different than myself. The conversation that took place on our drive home was far meatier than anything we saw on the stage.
There was an unfortunate air that the predominately white cast (notably odd for a play about race) was ashamed and uncomfortable with their participation in the production. When discussing the title, which is nondescript, with a more pointedly race-centric subtitle, the white cast explained they only share the title and omit the subtitle when telling friends about the show, “because they want them to come.” Personally, I feel this shame just reinforces the discomfort in talking about race further. This air of perpetuating the issues the play was intending to overcome was pervasive throughout. Unfortunately, I think a significant portion of art (and even social justice work at large) can fall into this trap.
My companion described the performance as a beautiful teacup that was empty, in a moment when we are parched and desperate for something to quench our unmistakable thirst for radical content, conversation, and action. The subtitle of the show insinuated that the play was in existence black folks, but it was actually yet another translation device for white people. From this, my companion told me how frustrating it is to spend a lifetime attending plays, seeing shows, experiencing life, that is all translated, produced, and packaged for a white, privileged audience. He wondered why he had come, why he sat in that audience, as this again was something not designed for him. It felt like another false attempt at creating something that breaks from this pattern, but rather just continues to perpetuate the existing hegemonic structure.
I am particularly interested in these ideas, as I am interested in how art can influence us and change the world. I recently read a comment from Vijay Prashad that I have been churning over in my head, “Art cannot by itself change the world. It can provide insight and perhaps an epiphany–but it does not change the relations of power in the world.” Art, and particularly theater/performance—as it is humans physically in front of you telling a story that taps into your brain, sympathetic nervous system, your empathy, to catalyze this potential for an epiphany–is powerful when leveraged appropriately. But it can become contrived quickly if the creator(s) fall into the ever-present fear of disapproval, a desire to have approval from the mainstream, to make money, to show success as we understand it today.
Although considerably disappointing, I am appreciative of the play because it did start a conversation and it did move forward thoughts I have about art and its ability to be radical. Unfortunately, I don’t think it does so in a way that the creators intended or had hoped. It came now out of its success at catalyzing this conversation, but its failure.
-anza jarschke