Chomsky Lectures
Do you feel that this play should be viewed as a lecture, or a piece of literature? Use evidence from the text to support your conclusion. (4 marks)
Brooks and Verdecchia are so self-aware that their piece might be viewed as a lecture rather than a work of art that it would seem churlish not to regard it as a work of art. It's certainly more artfully done than most of Hollywood's product nowadays. The device of the "artstick" which is employed any time the piece threatens to become more of a screed than a good night out is just such a device that works well. Any event which features lecturers squirting their audience with water pistols and pelting them with wadded-up paper is certainly more than just a lecture. Moreover Brooks and Verdecchia fit into an established tradition of political...
This style may place such works into a certain category of political art, but it does not render them not art. What the authors have to say in the text has a genuine validity, and I take the liberty of quoting it in full: "Some of you may be thinking that what we have embarked on here is not theatre. Well, that's too bad. I would like to say this: if the theatre is to survive, it must become something other than an expensive alternative to television. We are going to have to look at the world and the world of the theatre without ideological or artistic blinders. And I'm…
