Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:29:11 -0800
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: [Puptcrit] Gifts


Friends-

	This has been a fascinating thread.  We should somehow put 
together a collective puppet show about it, no kidding.  Sicilian 
marionette capitalists would come slashing their way through 
foam-rubber socialists - the possibilities are endless.

	But I'd like to jump back a minute to the point where Hyde's 
THE GIFT came into the picture.  I too liked that book enormously. 
But as I recall, it says very little about a "gift economy" or the 
various models, pro or con, that have been imagined here.  It has 
nothing to do with "How could we run the world if all refrigerators 
were free?" It's about the vital effects of "gift" in cultural 
formation and cohesion.

	The idea of gift as being something for which you expect no 
reciprocity is totally counter to Hyde's argument.  There is an 
expected reciprocity, but it's in the bond that the gift forms. 
That's why his subtitle refers to "the erotic life of property."

	Basically, he's saying that the bonds formed by gift-giving 
are an essential part of social coherence, whether it's a totem 
passed from one island tribe to another in the South Seas, eventually 
returning to the first giver and then continuing the journey, or the 
fact that I give my kids food, shelter & education in return for 
their love & loyalty & all that.  The whole point is that gifts do 
have strings attached. 

	Money does something else.  It buys freedom.  "I paid Bread & 
Puppet's fee, so it's my right to stop the show."  "I'm paying my own 
rent, Dad, so you can't tell me what to do."  "Let's make this Dutch 
treat (so you don't have the wrong expectations on this date)."  Once 
the money has changed hands, there's no more obligation.  Or if there 
is, you see a lawyer about it.

	I don't think Hyde brings this up, but I would propose that 
one crude model of a "gift economy" would be European feudalism. 
Hardly a Marxian vision, but a structure in which each level of the 
hierarchy bore reciprocal responsibilities to one another, and often 
obligations & rights were just two sides of the same coin (without 
much coinage) - the peasant was bound to the land, but the peasant 
couldn't be dispossessed from the land - and money played lesser role 
in the economy.  Money made land a marketable commodity, liberated 
(or condemned) the peasant to make his own work a marketable 
commodity, etc.  Was that good or bad?  Both, obviously.

	An extraordinary example of these confusions is in THE 
MERCHANT OF VENICE.  Antonio is a merchant, his life is in the 
accumulation of wealth through trade of commodities.  But his 
friendships are bound up with gift-giving - free loans and money 
gifts.  He despises Shylock because Shylock charges interest 
(treating money as a commodity), while Shylock hates Antonio for not 
doing so.  Money-as-commodity becomes lethal, threatening actual 
death.  When tables are turned, Shylock foiled and then robbed of his 
fortune, even his "gift" bonds go up in flames: the ring his wife 
gave him squandered by his daughter to buy a monkey.  A similar 
tragic misunderstanding was in the nature of many agreements with 
Indian tribes & Europeans, the latter seeing the exchange of 
commodities for land as a "purchase," the former not fully 
comprehending the absolute nature of "purchase."  So we evolved the 
term "Indian giver" - someone who gives you a gift and then expects 
it back. 

	I believe that Hyde is seeing the need for a restoration of 
the bonding power of "gift" in our culture, especially as it relates 
to artistic creation - the sense that we're involved in a mutual 
"gift exchange" with our audience rather than our simply being one 
amusement commodity among billions. 

	How to do that? of course is the question.  Doing free shows 
probably doesn't do anything toward that unless other dynamics change 
in the transaction, though I think pay-what-you-will nights do, 
often, have a slightly different feel.  Our own fundraising efforts 
offering a dvd in exchange for a donation of any size (and for INANNA 
that ranged from $15 to $2500) I think not only brought us a good 
return but, through that reciprocity, gave people a stronger stake in 
what we're doing.  Our current TEMPEST workshops - offering skills 
training in exchange for using actors as guinea pigs - have a tiny 
bit of that flavor that Michael described in his juggling sessions.

	Of course there are times when a performance has such power 
and "givingness" that it sweeps away all thoughts that you just 
bought a $50 ticket, and you're absolutely in love.  That's the 
ultimate answer, except to figure out how you can still play to 
people like me who can't afford the $50.

	But I'd sure like for the performance dynamic in more of the 
stuff I see - and do - to partake more of that gifting/bonding that 
Hyde describes.  I certainly sense it on peer-to-peer lists like 
this, and a similar dynamic among my other worlds of public radio 
producers, comic book artists, ensemble theatres, even Shakespearean 
scholars, where there may be lots of competition but still a sense 
that we're all in the same leaky boat and trying to help one another 
in our own little ways. 

	And I do believe there's a movement out there to interface 
"gift" with a sort of neo-tribal collaboration:  in different ways 
Wikipedia, open source software, the give-back philosophy of Creative 
Capital, our local Freecycle email list of people giving away 
unwanted stuff.  None of these are attempts to overthrow the 
international monetary system, but this movement has the potential to 
be significant.

	So, number one strategy for art-as-gift is just Do Great 
Work.  Are there other ways?

Peace & joy-
Conrad B.
_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
Archives: http://www.driftline.org