What I absorbed at the show:
Art and Truth are not the same, although people confuse them constantly.
Art and Authenticity have a troubled relationship. The question might be, can art and authenticity coexist? Authenticity is really a series of guises that enables or establishes a platform for communication.
The path of the artist is only periodically a performance for an audience--the path of the artist is not always in front of the audience--the path of the artist is not determined by audience.
The tension of a life in art is that of change and growth, in which the self is erased or mutilated, and that of re-making a self that feels authentic or holding as a touchstone a fragment of an original self.
Change is the only essential component of art because, without change, art does not exist. Art is not conceptual alone, not static. Change is the essence of life, and art imitates life--it would seem art must be growth, not just the emulation or realization of an idea--to successfully replicate a concept once and to leave it at that cannot be art.
The artist must keep moving. The quest of the artist is the quest for change, for mutability. Stasis is a kind of death. In movement and change lies understanding. And change is a threat. Yet the essence of art is change, which is why it is not truth because we assume truth is also equal to stability or to immutability. Is the immutable unknowable, or is it, in fact, exactly what we do know and, therefore, simply familiar? Is the action or activity of art then defamiliarization?
Must emotive content be real? Art that is emotive is often dismissed as emotional--as though art can only gesture at emotion and then, only distantly. But if art is not a state of authenticity, but only the masquerade of such, then why is art that emulates and projects emotion not acceptable as an artistic posture?
This was a good film.