Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yes, I have read some responses to Sarah Kane's work and I've seen her short film, Skin. - although I've not actually seen any of her plays.

Again, I've not seen 'England People Very Nice' but have followed the 'outrage' in the papers. And from what I can gather it isn't racist, which is why journalists such as Yasmin Alibhia-Brown has (reluctantly) condoned it. I also don't think its author set out simply to shock, in a way that arguably Gilbert and George, the Chapman's, Harvey and Anal Cunt do. 'England People Very Nice' is being defended by the arts establishment because it's a 'responsible' piece of work. But in order to meet its approval it appears that every line is being scrutinised in a way that I simply don't see with an artwork dealing in areas of misogyny, homophobia, class-hatred and the targeting of other religions - and not in a way that concentrates on its validity as an artform so much as for its potential to 'unreasonably provoke'. I can't say too much about the play itself because I've not seen it (although I want to, very much) but I do respect both Richard Bean for writing it and The National Theatre for putting it on. At the end of the day though, a recent article in the Independent ended up 'defending' the play on the grounds that the reviewer felt that it wasn't 'racist'. But what about the alleged sexism of a playwright like Harold Pinter? His plays are evaluated simply as being either good or bad according to their artistic merits not on 'they're actually not really sexist, so they're ok' grounds.

I suppose my point is that if all an artwork does is offend it probably isn't very good, but as an artwork it does have the right to offend, regardless of who it is that's being offended. Isn't that ultimately why we abolished the Lord Chamberlain all those years ago?

But anyway, yes, as soon as my wages go in on Thursday I'll be booking to see it, so I'll be able to say more about it then.