“I hate victims who respect their executioners.”
~ Jean-Paul Sartre

Jen,

This is a difficult post to respond to; and in all honesty I feel that titling it a "critical response" is a bit disingenuous; as the post is actually a series of questions posed to me (the artist) to justify aspects of the piece and explain their dramaturgical relevance.

So I will pose a question to you as well; it seems only fair. Before you posted this did you sit down with Mr. Frizzelle, you Editor and Chief, across the water cooler perhaps, and ask him his experience of the month? He was able to attend 3 of the 4 pieces; or did you think to ask Robin Held or Korby Sears who were able to attend all four pieces? They're both pretty smart and had some difficult insights. I think they could have easily answered some of your most basic questions and perhaps given you a bit of insight about the progression of the work, the number of pieces actually created, and the source material actually used. Which seems like a good idea if one is going to publicly post a critical response.

1) Why were the female performers so grossly underused? That is an interesting point to make. I wonder if Ms. Ryan after doing ALL of the speaking, and singing, and sitting under 80lbs of carnations felt underused? I will also point out that she was the ONLY performer in the 3rd Act Triumph and Ruin which took place in Occidental Park before she lead a procession lit by road flares back to the (former) Lawrimore Project. Since you missed Act II Defiance of All I will also pose the same question. I wonder if Ms. Jessie Smith felt underused as a featured dancer, and choreographer (along with Jim Kent, Chalnessa Eames, and Olivier Wevers) during an hour long piece ending with the final image featuring both Mr. Wevers and Ms. Eames? Shall I specifically address the progression of images in this ballet, or the role of women in Act I? I shall digress, but say this women were featured in this work; however if you call a collective Saint Genet there will be a lot of male on male action; I hope that isn't too passe.

2) I do not know if these are interesting reference points. They are interesting to me, however the question isn't a fair one either as it implies that that is the only source text and that that those sources are being used literally and singularly; and to be fair I don't have to interest you or anyone else for that matter; sorry. What was created at 831 Airport Way was a series of Aesthetic Declarations presented in 4 Acts. I can go into greater depth of what is means to be an aesthetic declaration; rather than a "work in progress" or other such nonsense; but perhaps that is something we can discuss over coffee. Each piece focused on completely different narrative aspects using similar thematic threads as a base line for the action of the work The sources that I was drawing on, and will continue to draw from come from a few places, the first being Sartre's Saint Genet, as a beautiful poetic love-letter from an existentialist to an essentialist. Our Father Sartre and our Mother Jean as t'were. As compared to the wonderful biography of Jean Genet GENET by Edmund White a book almost troubling for all the poetry it lacks when revealing the actual truth of who Jean Genet was versus the real truth of who he is in his work; and the actual beauty that resides in all that filth. As a persona based company/collective/kingdom the work will always touch on my obsession with monomania, cults,hysteric states, taboo subjects, the actual, literal, truth of events, and the Poetic truth of the performative moment, as well as my own manic-depression, elastic moral code, and insecurity were a continuing theme throughout the pieces that seems only logical and fair considering I have to make it. So as the first piece was a messy chaotic rendition of the hysteria surrounding The Manson Trials the actual truth of what Manson did as compared with what he is thought to have done, and the general feeling of hysteria that comes up whenever those murders and the facts of that case are discussed. I find that interesting and made Act I. The final piece (the one you were able to attend) was actually the continuation of the 3rd (which you were unable to attend) where for 3 hours Ms. Ryan was ritualistically prepared and covered in wine, flour, honey, and ash (different materials but in a process you would recognize) for 3 hours something that done publicly begins as a joke, a humiliation, and continues until the performer is so degraded they change; right in front of you into something other than human; when that happened she was escorted to the center of a massive flour landscape created by NKO and sang The People's Temple's Choirs "Black Baby" over and over and over again; blind and spinning in circles, until her voice failed. She then lead the procession back to the gallery where she would be covered in flowers and sit in pigs blood as she systematically went through the transcribed text recounting the final ten minutes in Jonestown. I don't need to justify those images; and I am sure my dramaturg will write a paper about all the homage references I placed in the work; when I wasn't directly aping my heros; whether or not they were interesting or the difference between the truth and the perceived truth are interesting, or Jean Genet as a figure, or his work, or Saint Genet as an idea is interesting it is to me and my friends and that is who I make work with and for; so I will say yes.

3) I am a cult leader and I am not white. I hope that perhaps that will be the irony tipping point.

4) When I approached our team of musicians about the work I was really drawn to Marceline Baldwin's rendition of The People's Temple Choir "Black Baby". I have used Shaker hymns as mantra's in the work before; to to be honest think it really encapsulates a few really beautiful things about The People's Temple, their public image, which was so different than the inner-workings of the church. Ms. Ryan would return to that hymn as she spoke the actual words, at an excessively slow and controlled pace with no emotional undercurrent, of the actual people, in their final moments, interspersed with some of my own ramblings and Genet's poetic prose to button things up; images, which were painful, and sad, and boring, and gross, happened in front of you. None of which was what actually happened in Jonestown; neither is it indicative of the wide breadth of these Aesthetic Declarations which I think is interesting

5) Yes; that was a release. It is pretty direct and basic. We were trapped in that doomed building for over a month. We made all of that work with no money. Most of the artists that participated are now out of house and home. A release after all that you bet.

"What is Saint Genet’s racial analysis?"
Must everything have a racial analysis?

See what happens when you create these imperious, indignant little pretentious art monsters you so love to elevate through your hipster cult worship that you call relevant and important Seattle contemporary artists Dr Frankengraves....
This smacks of such bull; bullshit laden with overly personal intellectual references that alienate the viewer and try so very hard to validate mediocrity. Not to mention preying upon trend and influence.
Is Robin Held smart?
... Doubtful

Northwest Mystic, I'll suck your dick.
xoxo

Some of the Implied Violence / Saint Genet principals, as represented here by @2 and @5, are extreme examples of a classic trope: immensely talented creators of fascinating art, who do to that art a terrible disservice every time they open their pretentious fucking mouths.

It's a terrible shame. With their boundless ambition and the reckless abandon they apply to executing it, their work is amazing to witness and has a gut-level impact that is not easy to shake.

Just don't ever ask them about it.

@6 i find your statement to be all too true.

@6, she attacked his piece (and by extension, him) as irrelevant and sexist after having seen but one of four parts. He's allowed to defend it and himself. And I don't think there's anything pretentious about offering to suck someone's dick. Pretension was @4.

Andy @6, did you actually read @2 all the way through?

"Aesthetic Declarations?" What, are the three letters of the word "art" insufficient to capture the heft of his genius? He had to invent entirely new terminology to represent his gift?

Shame, then, that "aesthetic declaration" is nothing but a fucking synonym for "art."

I was at the happenings/pieces -- both established art-world terms that fully encompass Saint Genet's work, by the way -- and the talent and commitment on display were the kind that cannot be faked. Saint Genet have also managed to master the "performance" and "spectacle" inherent in what they do -- though those two words will no doubt piss them off.

The work is a sensory-captivating experience that defies the urge to parse into familiar themes and symbols. But parsing, in a way that renders his ideas pedantic, reactionary, and inconsequential, is what the @2 spiel is all about. As I said, he's performing an incredible disservice to his own work.

And he's exactly the same way in person.

I really wish Ms. Grave's had replied to -drcm's response; those questions to me felt very personal and pointed. I think it was brave of Mr. Mitchell to respond at all. @d.p. if you find the work to be of value (which is seems you do) why not try and add to the dialogue instead of sniping at the artists? I do agree that "parsing" the work may not in fact illuminate it greatly, but that doesn't mean there aren't ideas to be unpacked. These pieces were ephemeral works and often when the work is good the experience of the thing itself feels like all that can be said. But it seems the point of criticism is to push beyond that and find a way to talk about the work. Sometimes it's good for artists to talk about their work, sometimes it's not, but there certainly is a dialogue that could be had if you (anyone really not specifically you) chose to engage with the substance of what Mr. Mitchell wrote or engage with Ms. Grave's post yourself. As far as Ms. Grave's original questions they seem to slant towards a feminist/racial reading of the piece which does not seem to me to be the most exciting or useful lens. Which doesn't mean that the questions shouldn't be asked, or that Mr. Mitchell shouldn't think about them as he continues to move forward. There is something about class and the way artists are treated in contemporary society that resonates with me and also makes the sources that this piece leapt from seem exciting and relevant. More than that for a first offering from a new arts entity these aesthetic declarations (or performances or workshops or work-in-progress showings or happenings or installations or whatever you want to call them) were ambitious, accomplished, beautiful, frightening, confusing in the best way, dangerous and exciting. As someone once said to me the purpose of feedback is to create more work...I think that is the place Ms. Graves is coming from and wouldn't it have been amazing if Mr. Mitchell's response to her questions had actually inspired other people to join a dialogue talking about the substance of the work. Mr. Mitchell & all of his St. Genet collaborators are vital to the arts in Seattle and to the city as a whole. They build community through their work both with St. Genet and in all the other projects they make happen in this city. They are a bright spot in what is increasingly a corporatized playground for condo dwellers from the east side. That doesn't mean the work shouldn't be questioned, but there's dialogue and then there's snark. Man it's gonna suck when they move away just like many of the other exciting artists who have called Seattle home.

Hi everybody: I'm just back from vacation; sorry about the radio silence. I definitely do want to talk about this more (hence my last line). I am not sure exactly how; I'll contact Ryan to see. (We are not, as drama-lovers might prefer to imagine, some kind of archenemies. I am a critic, he is an artist, often that is uncomfortable. Discomfort is just a distraction.)

@notadancer, thank you so much for your comments. Much to think/talk about.