Well, now that it's been six months, I'm spearheading a new attitude for myself, it's called: Embrace L.A.
This weekend I hit up an art faire and some small theater action, and there was something similar about both experiences that points to a larger trend. In our information-overload digital age, nothing is unique in its wholeness.
At the Beverly Hills "Affaire in the Gardens Art Show," many of the artists presented high-end canvas prints of their paintings (sometimes using fancy terms like glicee to indicate something more than a computer print). And not even in small-batch limited editions. This was a trend noticed at the Renegade Craft Faire as well. It's great that artists are finding ways to support themselves; however, it's just a nicely-inked print, then what value does this art object have long-term? These are just Pokemon cards for the hipster crowd; whereas, a brushstroke still denotes an artists labors that are an emotional and financial investment for the buyer. By turning this paradigm on its head, will artists lower their overall value by making their work cheaply ubiquitous?
As for the theater, there's a definite movement of antiquated and new. The other month, went to see the Jane Austen improv team which was hilarious and quirky. So thought I'd give some other mash-up a try and went to Pulp Shakespeare. The concept is fun; however, if you haven't seen Pulp Fiction (or haven't seen it recently) you spend the entire time trying to sort out what's happening in the movie and then carrying it to the scene. Thus, the Shakespearean language is just a device rather than being transportive to another time/place. I think this lies in the fact that the Pulp Fiction script does not lend itself to emotional portrayals. Overall, the acting was good and a special call out is deserved for the guy who played the Sam Jackson character—he was commanding and his impersonation of that character came through effectively, while still being tongue-in-cheek.
In the world of performance, this trend is fascinating because although not all of it will hit, there's always been something interesting in re-setting Shakespeare (think the Ian McKellen version of "Richard III")—how do our modern stories flesh out when seen through an antiquated lens?