I hope my last post didn't make it sound like I thought Art has to be inaccessible, or that accessible things can't be Art. That's not what I meant.
The performance I feel drawn to create is likely to be somewhat inaccessible. I think I can count it as a valid artistic expression, though.
A different performance or expression of artistry that happens to also be accessible is also still an artistic expression. This is, in fact, a principle behind the Great Translation Project - that making inaccessible art more accessible is worthwhile and does not inherently diminish the art of the original.
And to be fair, I do plan on making concessions to accessibility. I am not interested right now in performing in Old English. I want my audience to be able to easily access the meaning of my words, although this is a departure from utterly strict authenticity.
Like usual, it all comes back to one's own personal goals. If I wanted to continue working on the Great Translation Project for this next little while, I would be making accessibility a high-priority goal and not at all feeling like I was compromising because of it. The point of that project is accessibility. But right now I want to work on a project whose point is the re-creation of a different and distinctive performance style, even if that style is a bit inaccessible. And if I make changes only to make it more like what people expect from bardic performance, I would feel like I was compromising.
Comments