Here is something interesting. Here in London, you do not get a playbill when you go to see a show. This is quite disappointing, as I collect playbills from every professional play that I see. You actually have to pay around 3 pounds to get a playbill, which I just cannot justify. So I will be leaving London in December completely playbill-less. However, I did buy a t-shirt with Cosette's face plastered all over the front, so I am happy.
Today was my first day of classes! My schedule is quite lovely.
Monday:
Intro to Arts and Culture 2:00-4:00
Reading Women: Gender and Genre 4:00-6:00
Wednesday:
Writing Contemporary Britain 12:00-2:00
Thursday:
London Theatre in Performance 10:00-1:00
That's it! I have both Tuesdays and Fridays off, which make for a very nice week. "Intro to Arts and Culture" was first today, and I can already tell that this will be an interesting class. The purpose of the class is discovering what defines art and what its purpose is in society today. Our professor showed us several slides of different pieces of art and we discussed what we saw and what we knew about each one. One slide was of a piece of wood cut from a redwood tree. An artist had called a lumber yard, asked for this piece of wood, had it shipped to an art gallery and claimed it as his piece of art. Now this bugs me. We discussed whether this could actually be considered art and my first instinct was to say no. This man had nothing to do with the creation of this piece of wood. He didn't even physically place it in his gallery. How could this be called art if the artist wasn't involved in any sort of design or creation??? Then someone remarked that it was simply the man's idea that defined it as art. Hmm. I suppose this makes sense (sort of), but I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Throughout the class we continued to discuss various pieces of art and what message was being conveyed through that piece. This is another thing that bugs me. Look, I love art. I'm in theatre, I have to love art. I enjoy looking at paintings and sculptures and seeing films and taking photographs, but does every piece of art have to have a message? Isn't it possible that someone painted a landscape simply because he looked out over a mountain and thought, "Wow, that looks beautiful, I think I will paint a picture of it." Perhaps the artist just wants to portray the world around him with no underlying symbolism whatsoever. Isn't it rather presumptuous of us to say that a certain painting conveys a certain message when the fact is, we don't actually know? *Sigh.* This is the realist in me speaking, the side of me that is very much like my father, who I imagine would say the same thing. Am I right, Dad?
That was entirely too much thinking for one day.