(screen grab from SummerWorks promo .pdf - see below for link)
The Iconography of Censorship
A consideration of the images used by SummerWorks
by Stuart Munro
When you receive your ticket for a SummerWorks show you’re greeted with an interesting image: a giant eye (not unlike the all-seeing eye) with beams of what appears to be light flowing from it. On top of the beams is a black bar with the name of the play. The suggestion is simply that we, the audience, are here to see a play, and in the most literal way possible, the art implies that the play is being placed within our line of sight, thanks to the festival. But anyone walking around a festival venue or looking at the festival’s program will notice three other images in the series in addition to the eye: a speech bubble with a black bar across it, a computer with a black bar across its screen, and a piece of writing obscured by yet another black bar. Other than on the ticket, all four of these images lack the name of a play. Instead, it appears as though the black bar is hiding some kind of information. Something else is being suggested here and I’m forced to ask, “What is the festival trying to hide?”
The answer, I suspect, is nothing. I quickly scanned the festival’s website to see if I could find any explanation for these icons, but I came up empty. I don’t know much about SummerWorks’ history or mandate, but I do know that what separates it from Fringe is the fact that its plays have been juried. At some point, a group of people sat in a room and decided what plays had merit, and which didn’t. There’s nothing really wrong with this. Theatre companies do it all the time, and I don’t mind having a vetting process in a festival. But considering that the festival sells itself on the fact it’s been juried, it seems odd to me that their advertising campaign would highlight that something is being kept from us by using, what Dave Ross called, the iconography of censorship.
Perhaps the images are meant to make us curious about what’s hidden behind the black bar, or suggest we should eschew all other types of media and only watch theatre from this point on (hence the eye with a title on the ticket), but for me, the dominant idea is one of suppression, and I’m sure that’s not what the festival was hoping for.
took me like, two seconds to find this http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=182098
ReplyDeleteThat "Now" link is from 2011.
ReplyDeleteDo your research. This is poor journalism.
ReplyDeleteThank you Mr. Rubenfeld, for taking the time to comment on the one article out of our 40 covering your festival that you DIDN'T like. However, let me add that I am well aware of the various controversies surrounding SummerWorks and, after conducting a informal poll, there is no doubt that the icons you are using this year are vague enough to suggest many interpretations - including censorship.
ReplyDeleteI'll second that. The SummerWorks iconography is art, and all art (like say, theatre) is open to interpretation. And not every artist is going to be pleased with every interpretation, as much as we'd all like people to "get" what we wanted them to "get."
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest that the icons (and this article) have likely done what every artist would hope for - stimulate discussion. Munro closes his piece with "
Continue from prev (browser issues). Munro even states that there are other possibilities for interpretation. Maybe Rubenfeld should read the piece again.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that if you are aware of the issues of censorship surrounding the festival and the arts community, choosing not to write about it in a peice critiquing our design this year is choosing to be willfully ignorant. Which is ironic because this is the kind of journalism that started this mess in the first place. So you can see why it seems strange to make what seems like a fairly obvious connection in this piece. I am happy to be criticized and am grateful for this coverage of the festival, but if you choose to critique what we do in a way that omits obvious information, it feels like a strange act of self-censorship to me ... Which perhaps only makes our iconography more poignant.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a line stating "there are other possibilities for interpretation" in the op-ed. But even if there was, without mentioning the blindingly obvious reasons for the use of "the iconography of censorship", it would seem, at best, that the writer is entirely ignorant as to SummerWorks' recent history. At worst, it seems like a blinders-on potshot at the fest that's typical of the Sun Media demagogues who stirred up all the uninformed brouhaha in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHad the op-ed mentioned the very public and fraught relationship between SummerWorks, public funding, and possible censorship in the past few years, and still made a case for confusing iconography, well and good; a well informed discussion as to the merits and effectiveness of the artwork should be welcomed by the festival and artist.
But the lack of any context in the op-ed renders the opinion either ignorant, or biased; a "quick scan of the festival's website" doesn't constitute any sort of research. I sincerely hope this isn't indicative of the quality of op-eds we should expect from CharPo Toronto.
Ha. If I'd read Rubenfeld's most recent comment before submitting my own, I might not have bothered—I should be focusing on my own festival coverage. Anyway, point hopefully made. Keep up the qood work, CharPo—and please consider why this op-ed doesn't qualify as such.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many similar issues being raised in the comments of Mr. Rubenfeld and Mr. Fisher, that I will address them - forgive me - a little pell-mell. That two Torontonians could start throwing around accusations of Sun News demagoguery and "the kind of journalism that started this mess in the first place" in a fairly personal attack on a writer who is merely stating that icons used to representative SummerWorks are darkly ambiguous is to show a level of prickliness that I find difficult to comprehend. Is there a theatre commentator (including those at CharPo-Canada, CharPo Montreal and CharPo Toronto) who did not support the Festival in its debacles with the Harper government? What the comments - and their throwing around of hot-button epithets - show is a certain amount of thin-skinnedness and, sadly, self-absorption. Mr. Fisher - as a theatre writer - you should be ashamed of yourself for hoping that "this isn't indicative of the quality of op-eds...from CharPo Toronto" simply because the opinion disagrees with your own. And Mr. Rubenfeld, is this the level of self-absorption we can expect from you when the mildest criticism is aimed at ANY aspect of a festival which we have at CharPo (and over thousands of words) celebrated and, indeed, defended? Both of you gentlemen might take some time to go beyond CharPo-Toronto and have a look at the CharPo-Canada or CharPo-Montreal sites where for one and two years, respectively, we have defended the festival, its aims and content and where we will continue to do so.
ReplyDeleteGaëtan Charlebois (publisher)
Gaetan,
ReplyDeleteMy comment was focused purely on the lack of due diligence done by Mr. Munro in this particular op-ed. I have stated no opinion as to whether or not I agree or disagree with his opinion of SummerWorks' artwork. My point was that a poorly researched post is a terrible starting point for a meaningful discussion; in that respect, I do see similarities here with the Sun Media & SummerWorks debacle—though the carelessness exhibited here is obviously trivial in comparison.
CharPo Canada's previous exemplary track record of coverage of SummerWorks and its recent history makes this op-ed even more baffling. The expectation should be that CharPo contributors are more informed regarding theatre topics than the general public, not less.
I've been optimistic about CharPo's venture into this city's theatre scene, to the point of giving the site a shout out in my own most recent op-ed about the Factory boycott. But I don't feel any shame in calling a spade a spade, and this particular op-ed isn't anywhere near the standards your readers deserve.
I'm going to excuse myself for a length of time at this point, because A) I have my own due diligence to attend to regarding SummerWorks coverage, and B) I'm not interested in this devolving any further into personal attacks.
Let me assure you, I've read CharPo posts by Mr. Munro before that I thought highly of, and if I haven't commented on them, it's because I didn't feel the need to be a colleague's cheerleader. But if I'd written a post with as huge a blind spot as this, I would hope someone would call me to task as well. "Hate the sin, not the sinner."
1) Munro admits that he doesn't know much about the history or mandate of the festival.
ReplyDelete2) The final paragraph posits the possibility of other interpretations.
3) I moved here from BC almost two years ago, and started covering theatre shortly thereafter. I hadn't heard anything about Summerworks and Homegrown prior to the festival actually starting in 2012.
4) Searching Google with numerous permutations of "summerworks, art, icon, artwork, graphic" turns up nothing on the artistic statement being made here, nor Rubenfelds op-ed. "summerworks censorship" finally reveals Rubenfeld's op-ed, on the third page of hits, after links to articles on summer work programs for students.
5) I attended several productions at Summerworks, and after one of my friends questioned the icons, discussion ensued. Each of the friends I saw shows with arrived at censorship, but were bewildered as to the source.
6) I happened to be at the press desk at the LOT, and no one there knew the inspiration for the design nor what the icons stood for.
My point here is that there is no point in cutting down Mr. Munro, he reacted to the artwork, and that is what this piece is about. He saw, he reacted. And he wasn't alone in how he reacted.
If there is indeed a reference back to the Homegrown/Summerworks/Harper Scandal of 2011, it is obscure, an inside reference to people "in the know." Non-theatre folks only read censorship, without the weight of the funding issues. Would Mr. Fisher or Mr. Rubenfeld criticize a reaction from a non-theatre person the same way? Blind spots exist, and those blind spots influence a persons reaction to a piece of art/object/statement.
I have no issue with people not understanding the iconography. If our goal was for everyone to understand everything, SummerWorks would no longer be relevant or interesting. My issue is that this piece is framed as a critique of our design - an opportunity to have an informed conversation about the work, but it only re-enforces someone's confusion instead of helping to contextualize the work. If you are going to be critical of others, be equally critical of yourself and the perspectives you are putting into the world.
ReplyDeleteOh gross! Is this blog's design from the 1990s in an ironic way that only hipsters can appreciate?
ReplyDelete