Part of the point of this whole experiment is to divorce the many years of assuming that something is only artistically true if I earn a living doing it.
I think that’s an important distinction, and not wrong, and particularly difficult in an art form as essentially pragmatic as theatre. I still believe that the work of theatrical art is the presentation of it before the audience – it doesn’t really exist without that – and everything is in service to that presentation. But can we continue to make great theatre without making it responsible for paying rent; those two don’t necessarily go together – the need to be paid and the creation of an artistic event. That said, I am still elitist enough to think that the work of art must be of a high caliber – there is no “well, it’s good for that particular group and therefore a worthy piece.” and insert community, high school, etc. into the group. So what can we make that is of high artistic merit and value but doesn’t (and indeed shouldn’t) pay the rent? Centering on the “amateur” – for the love of – lens, not the pro vs. nonpro lens. And one thing that jumps out is the idea of time – how long should it take to make something. And if you don’t need to pay the rent, there is immediately an abundance of time.