I teach a section on offering feedback/creating arts criticism when I teach Advanced Modern. I use Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Method, because I believe it encapsulates best what I believe a piece of criticism is there to do: help the artist know if the art work met its goal.
So, this is the framework from which I write and offer the following:
It is absolutely OK for art to be fluffy, entertaining, and fun. It does not have to have “a point”, “a message” or be “thought-provoking”.
I am writing this at the beginning of December, aka The Nutcracker season. No one (at least not that I’ve seen) is running around demanding that we stop doing The Nutcracker because it isn’t addressing any social issues. It does not. It is a fluffy ballet. What we are asking for is that companies examine how they present The Nutcracker. The Nutcracker does not address cultural appropriation, but that is not a reason to engage in it. The Nutcracker does not address racism and othering in ballet, but that is not a reason to cast only white dancers.
The problem with doing The Nutcracker is not the choice of doing The Nutcracker (I mean, yes, you could make other choices, and I’d encourage you to examine them). We, as audiences, recognize the pull of both tradition and money-making. The problem with doing The Nutcracker is doing The Nutcracker in an unexamined, inequitable way, when you have the resources and time (You know you are doing The Nutcracker every damn year. You can plan ahead to make these changes.) to create choreography that is respectful of people and cultures, and cast dancers of all shapes, sizes, races, etc. And actually (and unfortunately), in 2022, choosing to do so is a social statement in and of itself.
For some reason, theatre is not being given this same treatment. There seems to be this push now to make all theatre “deliver a message”, when not all theatre does this. Some are simply fluffy, fun, entertaining shows.
The problem with doing a “butts-in-seats” show is not the choice of doing a “butts-in-seats” show. The problem with doing a “butts-in-seats” show is doing a “butts-in-seats” show in an unexamined, inequitable way, when you have the resources and time to do differently. I have 0 problems with your fluffy comedy when problematic language has been changed (after the approval of the copyright holder of course!), it is cast, crew, and creative team contain wonderful representation of shapes, sizes, races, ages, etc., and you don’t pretend it’s anything it isn’t.
I do, however, have a problem with shows that purport to be “delivering a message” for the betterment of society, while the show and the institution presenting it continue to create inequitable and unsafe working environments for actors and crew. If your show is “delivering a message” about how there is a societal problem, but does nothing, within the show, within the community engagement surrounding the show, or within the actual practices of the institution or the production to address said problem, you are simply using that show to create an environment to normalize or excuse your own lack of action.
It’s OK to just enjoy a fluffy show and not ask for it to be anything more than it is, if the show is done in a way that helps to create equity. I think we should be much more concerned with the shows that say they are addressing society’s ills, while the show and/or institution simply continue to create inequity and cause harm.