Brittle

Art and politics. What a mess it is sometimes.
As a playwright, it’s possible that I might be stacking the deck when it comes to anything I write. Some critics have liked what I wrote. Others have not. That’s the way it works. That’s the transaction. I’ve made my own comments about the way I think I’ve been treated. Whether my perception is correct or not, I’m trying to avoid the poor examples that currently exist.
We live in an age when a brittle personality with a platform can be so fragile that they would attack a critic or a journalist and call for that critic to be barred from places where the critic might pose difficult questions. It doesn’t help when the mob mentality erupts and everyone on the side of the offended is calling for the head of that journalist / critic.
Having read the tweets from this brittle and oh so fragile star, and kept up with the latest news, I’m glad that the critic in this case, Jim Acosta, asked the questions, refused to back down and is still speaking truth to power. Trump has the biggest platform in the world and should expect criticism when he pushes the boundaries of the Office he holds.
I think he expects criticism. In his buffoonery, I think that the man who wrote The Art of the Deal is totally aware of the transaction taking place. I’m not saying that he is purposeful about using the Rhetorical Triangle of Appeals - Logos, Ethos and Pathos. But I am saying he appeals to a certain demographic and he knows it.
"One thing I've learned about the press is that they're always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better...The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you." The Art of The Deal.
Write about you, they shall. That’s part of the transaction. If you seek to have a platform and persuade an audience to feel something and trust your work, then you should expect the criticism to occur.
An artist can muddy the waters of this transaction when they continually appeal to the audience in asking for the work to be considered in the context of the artists race. This is a set up. It sets up the failure of the critic and the failure of any audience member who did not respond positively to the work.
The audience member who didn’t like the show leaves feeling robbed. For the audience, the transaction is over. Good or bad, the money was paid.
The transaction between critic and artist however, is an ongoing discussion of the work and its appeal to an audience.
It does not matter what race the critic or reviewer is when the set up comes into play.
It’s either...
CRITIC: I liked the work.
ARTIST: Are you the same race as me?
CRITIC: No.
ARTIST: Good for you. You are enlightened enough to see beyond race.
Or
CRITIC: I didn’t like the work
ARTIST: Are you the same race as me?
CRITIC: No
ARTIST: Racist. You’re banned.

Or perhaps it is...

CRITIC: I liked the work
ARTIST: Are you the same race as me?
CRITIC: Yes
ARTIST: Well, of course you liked the work.

Lastly...

​CRITIC: I didn’t like the work
ARTIST: Are you the same race as me?
CRITIC: Yes
ARTIST: You need to decolonise your mind.

It’s easy to call someone racist. Even I’ve done it. In any case, setting up your work to be viewed in the context of race automatically divides the audience. It also divides the critics. This is how work that is couched in identity politics becomes wedge politics. It doesn’t matter who the artist is or who the critic is. It doesn’t matter what race they are. If the work is being presented in a manner that demands a response based on race then the transaction between critic and artist is doomed to fail if you want them responding positively all the time.
If a president / prime minister is continually creating a racial divide then that leadership is doomed.
And those who ultimately benefit from the work of a black artist know what Donald Trump, the leader of the free world, knows... “You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.” The Art of The Deal.
The ultimate beneficiary? It’s the company or gallery or music festival that chooses to knowingly stage a work that is “...a little different, a little outrageous, bold or controversial."
Critics and artists will continue their transactions. Regardless of the many and varied transactions or compromises that have taken place in the creation of a work, good or bad, black or white, the money gets counted by the company.
Is this how it is now?
Appeal to race. Appeal to the worst side of humanity and divide your audience. Ban the critic. Stop them asking difficult questions. Bring in the next audience. Surround yourself with critics who like you. Count the money. Make sure the people don’t catch on. Squash any investigation into the way you work. If the critics don’t back down, cry about it on social media and declare a witch hunt is taking place. Is this how art should work in the age of Trump?
He’s not the best example of how to rule the world.

​So we probably shouldn't transfer the brittle Trump-like spirit into the theatre industry.