Suzanne Lacy Reading

This piece opened my mind a great deal to the various issues around art. I was especially piqued by her question: "Should people fund, through the NEA, artworks that offend public sensibility?" This caught my attention so much because I thought the point of art was that it was a personal experience being publicly offered. Even if it offends, it is still a valid perspective and it's coming to light creates the possibility of a like-minded soul feeling less alone, more included. Things that bring us together, no matter how offensive, are important, especially today.
I really enjoyed her statement, "To make oneself a conduit for expression of a whole social group can be an act of profound empathy." While this can also come off to some as extremely presumptuous and perhaps narcissistic, it is nonetheless a beautiful offering and in the end it is what we have to look back on when researching the history of a culture, group or time. The bold ones who cared enough to take it upon themselves to represent are the ones who are remembered.
I appreciated her discussion of the benefits of a fluid, flexible audience; one that is not just watching but is somehow involved. It reminded me of Boal's idea of the "Spectactor" By hosting workshops or allowing audiences to volunteer their involvement in the work, they have a more vested interest in it from that point on, even if they only help once. The trick is to rope in the ones who don't have time to be involved. How can they feel a sense of responsibility while simply watching...maybe it's about giving them more power of interaction and choice.