ROHTKO - Art In Capitalism.

I’m not even going to attempt to fully comprehend/ pretend every part of this went in but that’s also kind of the point of the whole thing. I wanna write about what sat on me about this show because I think we can learn loads from it and, if we take anything from this, it’s that anyone can take something from Art and there is no “right” way to get it. We simply have to touch, it feel it, see what sits on us. And that’s enough. So that’s what I’m going to attempt here…. I’m not an academic. I have no degree. I just.. like Art. And that makes me as qualified as anyone to respond to Art… or at least this play says.

Right so the show is all set in a Chinese restaurant at various points over the last 60 years. It’s a restaurant where artists, curators, dealers, and general art folk go. It’s real and it’s the setting for a real life inciting incident but not really a story. The inciting incident is this: At some point a gallery sold a fake Rothko, to a very rich guy, for 8.5 million dollars. That’s pretty much as far as the story goes. It’s not a linear story in that sense; it’s an incident that allows us to delve into the art world and ask the key question. How does Art sit in capitalism?

In this specific example an impersonation of Rothko found it’s way to being seen as legitimate. It was seen as real by experts who saw that it’s attributes line up with Rothko at the time, using the same materials, seemingly done in the same manner. It was an algorithm perfect Rothko. But it was not a Rothko. So the first question we ask is “What is real?”. Can a copy be Art? Brughel did them loads. We reinvent classics all the time. James Graham is wonderful and reinvents HISTORY. There is nothing wrong with touching, and feeling, classics to see how they might sit with us, and through us now. That in it’s self is Art. There is no question. Which is useful for us in the time of the “adaptation”. One of the best examples of this was I JOAN by Charlie Josephine. Uniquely telling us that story through that particular artists prism. That, of course, is Art. Is it Art because it’s not trying to impersonate but to illuminate? Probably. Art is about reaching out and the way it happens can be through something else. That’s cool. But the reason the fake Rothko ISN’T is because it’s just an impersonation. It cannot BE that other thing. That’s copying. We have to find our meaning and out expression using these old things as a jump off to illuminate ourselves, an our world, as ourselves.

This idea is manifested in the form as well; we watch a live film of the play like it’s original too but that’s also a copy. Parts of it aren’t even live. Does it make it any less real because someone is editing it? Not in it’s core; it’s just that somewhere, someone, is illuminating what is happening on stage for us to absorb differently. Like James Graham, Charlie Josephine, Brughel.. It’s the same idea. And it’s a great one to learn for now.

The same idea of illumination isn’t true, how ever, for the central world the play finds its self in. The play is set in a restaurant in which Chinese folk copy recipes, and embellish them for western tastes, for money. In our lives we cook for people because we care for them either literally providing sustience or because we want to share time with them. Food is love. What we’re doing is caring for peoples health and joy. So central to the idea of the play is the idea of recreating in a capitalist context where cooking is not about love but money. What is lost when we stop cooking for love and start doing it simply for money? Love. Care. It becomes tasty thing you like for cash. In this world at least. Except for people who work there - then it’s love because there’s a vested interest in their wellbeing. So Art then can again be a copy if it’s intent is there. An intent of love, found anew, through now, in this context, finding ourselves and a way to express it. But the problem is, like a Chinese restaurant in America, that it’s still within capitalism. Which means certain parameters have to be put in place for our Art to find an audience or make money even when they start with intent.

The parameters we find, in the UK theatre, are the objectives of the organisation, funding bodies, and audiences. This show could never be made here because of them partly because we couldn’t afford it and partly because it would be seen as culturally risky despite the fact the show has done so well it’s toured the word. How does that happen? Perhaps being endorsed by the Barbican helps? It’s true in the play. In the play the journey of is Art is this: Art - curator - gallery - to rich person - money. That’s it. Being liked by a gate keeper MAKES YOU REAL. In the UK Theatre industry a project cannot become real without producers so we have to assume that any project must be a collaboration between the artists intent and the producers parameters. But does that lessen the artist? Not sure. A projects ability to be a thing a producer needs, or a gate keeper likes, is necessary for its materialisation but arbitrary in it’s value of its self. Art on it’s own is real when it comes from someone, for someone else, in a way that is of the artist that sits on the soul of the person engaging with it. That’s real. Those parameters don’t make it LESS real either. They just.. make it something that can fit within the producer or curators interests. That’s how Art Remains Real In Capitalism. By remaining true in intent, and expression, in collaboration with those that can make it happen whilst navigating the parameters. This is true even with buildings that are “artists buildings” like The Royal Court. Everyone has parameters even if they are aesthetic. But… what about Artists?

In the example above I’m talking about collaboration between producer and artist. That’s the dream situation for an artist in UK Theatre (besides do what you want and we’ll stage it). In ROHTKO we see two artists caught up in it all. The first is ROHTKO himself who drives himself mad thinking he has no use in the world any more. “Am I still a painter?”. And the second an artist who wants to capture her tears in viles whilst looking at Rothko’s paintings. Both artists kill themselves in real life. These idea broke me because it made me think about how disposable artists are when they’re blocked, out of fashion, or not useful in that moment with the project they have. I think about how cruelly artists in my immediate world have been treated by organisations who ghost you mid conversation, offer commissions and then disappear, or even offer life changing production dates and then pull out at the late minute without reason. If an Artist isn’t of value to a producer in capitalism they are fodder and the lack of care in an industry, that runs on people often dramatising their trauma at the behest of capitalism, is brutal. In the collective experience of theatre artists the producers (except for a few notable exceptions) make no effort to communicate in a kind and considerate manner when it doesn’t directly suit them in the interest of capitalism. This is because they too are over worked and under paid and capitalism has got them by the pubes. People in theatre are generally good. They are also generally artists who get it. There’s just too few people doing too much. But it doesn’t change the experience of the artist. So how do we make art when this happens? The only lesson I’ve had in this is in The White Pube’s book THE POOR ARTIST. The “Artist” (I use “” because they’re semi fictionalised) had a similar journey (sort of) and ended up finding a way to make their art purposeful and perfect and theirs by returning to self and purpose by working locally, and small, for joy with a little impact outside the realms of trying to make loads of money and be famous. And that’s what we have to return to. Finding a way to have impact, as us, for the change we want to see. Those core ideas; what am I doing, why, who for, how is this of me, what will happen, how can I make this happen. We remain real because we remain in touch with ourselves, the world, and express ourselves in the hope of being useful to others. That’s us being real. That’s what’s eternal. That’s remaining real as an artist in a capitalist world without participating in capitalism. Remaining an artist at all is a win.

How we see ourselves as artists, in capitalism, is a big part of ROHTKO. An old actor speaks a lot about WHY he loves the theatre and how he’s prepared to live in a tree in the park just to be able to afford to do it. It left me thinking about all the artists I know that lie about the truth of their own lives to make themselves more interesting and therefore useful in capitalism. Especially around class and other forms of oppression that are worn less obviously. The Artist in capitalism, in the UK theatre, film and TV, has a tendency to abandon themselves and their truth in order to bend into something more “interesting” to be bought. I know of a lot of actors who openly go around cosplaying as poverty stricken and trauma induced in order to get more jobs. I’m sure there’s lots more of it than I’m aware but we have to learn a lesson here. It’s not truth. Anything that isn’t true doesn’t belong. Not only do we deny truth but we also exasperate lies. What’s beautiful about this scene is that after that interaction he talks about how theatre dies and we see what he really feels… and then he hears a song that moves him and he dances. He gets the person he’s talking to (an actress existing entirely in capitalism - doing jobs for money and performing values rather than activism) dance with him. For a second they are in joy. It’s a moment that will die. But it’s just for them. For a moment. Perhaps the simplest idea of why actors act… because they just enjoy it. The simplest idea of theatre, and art, is that we are connected by something someone else has done, in this moment, and dies but lives on in us.

Ultimately all that matters is how Art is met. There’s a lot in ROHTKO about “who gets to say art is good”. It’s a lot of very rich people saying stupid stuff and normal people just agreeing with them. There’s a great section where a working class man asks a posh dude what he thinks and he tells him and the working class dude just says “me too”. There’s also a bit where rich people think they “get it” more profoundly than working class people just on account of them having being exposed to more art. Sure as you engage with more Art you’ll have more reference points and be able to tie it all together but that does not diminish someone who is seeing their play or their first painting. Meeting art is simple. We meet it and see what happens. I want to meet Art the same way I meet books and films when I’m at home. I met them in that moment as myself and see what happens. Fundamentally we cannot change who we are as people who encounter art either. But us, now, in the moment, meeting something… that’s real. That’s how we by pass these systems that impose value on Art and meet it as intended; face to face. As ourselves. That’s real. Not taking critics, or some random Rah from Bristol unis, words as gospel. Art’s for all of us.

Being an artist is simple; we make work from ourselves in the hope it will touch someone else. That’s what it is at it’s core. But the end of the play shines a light on this. At the end of the play the curators/ investors take over and do their own art in pure capitalist style. They offer something that can be “what ever it is you like” handing over the art to the audience/ consumer. Now this is the prophetic piece of the story that stuck with me properly. What happens when Art becomes audience led? In this instance what we lose is what’s real at the heart of the original and the copies. We lose The Artist sitting down to make something with intent for others. We lose the cooking for love. We lose the actual intention and the unique expression of that intention from someone to someone else. The only thing that matters. Instead we have a product that people can buy. We have AUDIENCE LED art… appealing to what curators/ producers think audiences think they already like. But what does that mean? I know what I’ve liked in the past but my mind is blown apart almost every week by new (to me) novels, films, television, art, poetry, theatre, and music. The constantly engaging with the world as expressed by the most attentive and eloquent artists alive and dead. That’s what ART IS. And that’s the major warning for UK Theatre; if we lose the idea of not having artists intergrated into organisational leadership roles, and in key positions within the organisation, we will rely on data to run the organisations and that’s not how art works. Art can only comes from Artists and organisations can only collaborate with Artists if there are Artists themselves in there. That’s the goal for UK theatre. Navigate capitalism by navigating the parameters of producers with artists. But we need artists in leadership positions. In the play the message is simpler; let artists lead on art not audiences. Capitalism, in principle, says “give them what they want” but with Art people don’t know what they want until they see it. And if they do they’re not growing. And if they’re not growing then Art isn’t useful.

This, I think, is what ROHTKO is telling us deep down. What is OF VALUE is that feeling of someone expressing something for you. When it’s in capitalism that is what people buy… not what people tell them is good, not what has financial value, not what has the coolest context - simple that feeling of truth expressed uniquely and that landing on the soul. It’s why my favorite poem is by my Grand Dad about him telling me how to live. That, to me, is of more use than Hamlet. That is what Art is in Capitalism or anything else. And that is what is of REAL value, in capitalism or not. Good luck having any longevity as an art form without it.