~Sappy Daze~ Day 5

Have Some Manners

Being witty can be kind of 
shitty, but being shitty is not 

witty. Someone not witty, not 
necessarily shitty, is a dumbass.

Someone shitty, not necessarily 
witty, is a smartass. I know that 

being dumb is bad and being 
smart is good. Still, I’d rather 

be a dimwit with shitty wit, than 
be a witty shit, who’s a piece of shit.

- Sappy

Crooked Fool: Theatre is grind culture is ableism.

I have an old, faded bumper sticker on my car that reads, “I can’t. I have rehearsal.” I’m sure it was given to me as a gift, though I can’t remember when or by whom. I do remember laughing when I first held it in my hands, mostly out of genuine mirth, understanding the joke, but partially also out of ruefulness.

Though there were a few earlier experiences with middle school classes and the like, I first became involved in theatre “for real” when I was 14 and attending Interlochen Arts Academy. On top of a 9-hour school day, I was expected to complete multiple large projects each semester, complete a certain number of community service hours, attend mandatory performances, rehearse for my own performances, and practice classical guitar on a regular basis, all in addition to the typical high school homework. I can’t remember for sure if this was ever explicitly said, but it very much seemed like we were being prepared to work at this level indefinitely “out in the real world.” And I have. My work ethic changed as a result of my time there, and even some grad students I know marvel at the kind of schedule I often keep.

In part because the arts are so undervalued and underfunded in the US, many of us cannot fund our lives through our hard-earned creative skills alone. Perhaps Interlochen was preparing me for the reality that I’d likely have to hold down a fulltime survival job in addition to any creative work that I wanted to do. If that was the case, they’re unfortunately probably right. Having dipped my toe into the world of professional theatre, that is in fact what I and just about everyone I know has had to do.

But the failings of late-stage American capitalism aside, we need to take a breath when it comes to the emphasis placed on work ethic. It’s not healthy for anybody, but when it’s also slamming the door in the faces of Disabled artists.

In theatre, I was taught to accept a 3-hour rehearsal after an 8-hour workday for weeks on end. I was conditioned never to consider adding a conflict after the rehearsal schedule had been posted, whether the reason was an unexpected family obligation or a debilitating migraine. I was taught to ignore bodily needs, pain, and exhaustion if they were going to in any way alter the flow of rehearsal.

I can remember a show I did when I was 16 where I was asked to stand at attention onstage for a large portion of the show, which set off days of back pain. I finally gave in and asked the director if I could kneel down during rehearsal. He agreed, but no mention was ever made of altering the blocking so that I wouldn’t be in pain, and I didn’t dare ask. At the time, I accepted pain as something I would have to put up with in order to put on a good show. “The show must go on” and I would have to “leave my baggage at the door.”

A solid decade later, my perspective has changed, and I’m gonna call it: that shit is ableist.

When we demand this level of grind from artists, on top of reducing their bodies to value-making cogs in a capitalist machine (even if the machine is gloriously creative), we are making tacit assumptions that all bodies have the same capabilities and use energy the same way. We assume that if something is hard, but doable for me, and doesn’t cause too much damage to my body, then it must be true for someone else. And by refusing to make accommodations, we’re basically saying that if a body can’t get with this overwhelming program, they don’t deserve a spot in the room. Their point of view is eliminated from the crucial discourse we take part in through the arts, ensuring that dominant and often oppressive perspectives are never challenged. And if we assert that making rehearsal and performance spaces more accessible in some way erodes excellence, we’re not only laying bare our own lack of creativity and vision in coming up with solutions, we’re also asserting that disability-friendly theatre, and thereby Disabled perspectives, will always be less than.

Some years after that back pain-ridden production, I ended up going through major spinal surgery in the hopes of correcting the pain and visible spinal deformity that I’d dealt with for my first decade in theatre. Less than a year later, I began an intensive program in physical theatre at Dell’arte International. With class 9-5 every day, nightly rehearsals, and attendance policies that made it nearly impossible to take even a day to care for one’s body, I can see where some might question if that’s really the place for myself as a Disabled performer to be. But this, again, is actually a question of my right to make art, to make my perspective heard, and to use my body, Disabled or no, in the ways that I choose. If you’re saying that this space should not have accommodated me, what you’re actually saying is that I should not have the right to make theatre.

I ended up not only completing the program with flying colors, but being voted ensemble director by my peers. I was one of seven graduates that year. But by the end of the program, I was also reckoning with a difficult truth: the culture of theatre, as it stands now, is inherently ableist and would make no space for me. I spent a solid year after leaving the program genuinely thinking that I was going to have to throw in the towel on over a decade of work and stop performing. If I couldn’t push through pain and fatigue and beat my body into performing in ways that were convenient and desirable for able-bodied educators and directors, what hope was there?

Capitalism only values bodies if they can produce, and for this reason, bodies like mine are not valued. Sacred and ancient though it may be, theatre culture has, on the whole, also adopted this thinking. And in addition to denying Disabled artists a place at the table, this thinking reduces all bodies to their production capacity. An actor is not valued as a human being until they can get cast in a large production, satisfy their director, and bring in audience. And if I’m being honest, I’ve felt that dehumanization keenly even when disability was not the main issue I was experiencing during a show.

But what if we took accessibility as a creative challenge? And what if we decided to value the human beings in the room beyond their ability to keep a convenient rehearsal room and sell tickets? Doing these things does not erode the quality of theatre; in fact, taking on these new, innovative, creative challenges may serve to elevate the artform further. What possibilities have we stubbornly refused to explore?

I will be the first to say that theatre is sacred. But so am I. And you can’t make theatre without people.

aSoSS 29 | Terror

I get stressed out when people don’t take in the environment around them.

AADL Downtown, 10AM, 8/31/2024

absorbed should have a much more negative connotation than it carries. you are so full that there is nothing left of you. no more capacity to love, to help, to notice. you successfully create an alternate reality that only you can see: everything cut off, no inputs from above, the plane has lost its radar. to pop the fantasy like a balloon feels like slicing into flesh, attention spreading rapidly from the cut. your eyes finally look up–and then, like an infection, the condition switches to me…


I can handle suspense, I can handle horror, but I can’t handle blood… that’s why I hate the Saw movies.

Salvation Army, 5:00PM, 10/14/2024

you are counting the age of a dead child. she lies immobile, chest heaving in the wind. a good pretender, i’ll admit. perished from inside, limbs left to rot. there are flowers where her fingers used to be. i grab a bone and snap it, relishing the crunch, the final release of form. to grow for decades and disappear in one pinch–energy stored is energy gained, nothing is permanent except for a loss of permanence. from the middle of the stump, a seedling reaches for the sunlight. even in death, life always finds a way.


Dementia’s kinda kicking in, huh? But yeah, she’s in good spirits…

AADL Downtown, 4:30PM, 10/29/2024

look at the lips, how they twitch. the eyes, how they lead. beneath the scalp, an occupation–quick to burn, quicker to bleed. having no anchor will leave you stranded even in the harbor. the tide swells and the eddy swirls and you spin, around and around, forgetting which way is forward. we are privy to the comforts of a world unchanged, a diorama, a beetle encased in resin. up in the brain: more spirits, more childhood bedrooms, more confusion, more spinning. the mind’s eye, shattered into a thousand infinities, each one smaller than a drop of water.

Crooked Fool: Who are the “real” artists?

I recently closed a professional, devised show in Detroit. For anyone who isn’t familiar with this type of theatre, it basically involves a group of performers building an original show from the ground up, often utilizing games and improvisation. When we were rehearsing one day, I started moving along with a poem being read by another performer.

And then the question came: are you a dancer?

And oof, that’s a tough one.

So first of all, because I am stubborn, yes. In small part due to a random smattering of dance classes, mostly in adulthood, and in much larger part due to some pretty extensive physical theatre training, I have a degree of body awareness and creativity, and I move to express beauty and tell stories. So yes, I dance.

But that’s not what I told them.

“It’s complicated.”

I’ve taken some dance classes. I’ve tried out a lot of styles. I’ve done some work developing stamina, flexibility, and somatic awareness. But, despite the way I think about my own identity as an artist, I’m also keenly aware that there are plenty of people – many of them dancers – who would not view that label as accurate.

As a child, my dance training was limited to a few classes at the Y. I did not spend years in ballet or modern technique classes learning the correct ways to position my feet or perfecting my placement. Instead, when the theatres all closed during the pandemic and I ended up with a bunch of free time on my hands, I started taking adult dance classes. It started with various hip hop styles, such as popping, locking, and breaking, then branched into the somewhat scarier and certainly more daring circus arts, like silks, pole dancing, and parkour, before coming back down to Earth with styles like modern and contemporary. Even now, if somebody tried to verbalize some kind of choreography to me, it’s still a crapshoot whether I’ll have any idea what they’re talking about. Though it’s worth noting that I can do quite a lot if somebody explains movements in terms of body mechanics instead of dance vocabulary.

So, this time, I’ll pose the question to you: am I a dancer? Can I call myself a dancer if I didn’t spend my entire childhood learning technique and then ideally perfecting it in college? If my aesthetic is less “point your toes” and more “let’s try this weird thing and see if it looks cool?”

There’s a lot at stake in this question. How should I think of myself artistically? What are the “right” labels?

But most importantly: who gets to call themselves an artist?

Because if the only people who get to be artists are those who can afford thousands of hours of classes and do things the “right” way according to the standards of the dominant culture, that’s a really big problem.

First: how many hours of dance classes does it take to perfect the minutiae of technique? And more importantly, how many people can afford that many dance classes? As a kid, I sure couldn’t. I don’t necessarily think that there’s anything wrong with learning technique in dance or any art form. There’s definitely some benefit to have more tools to pull from when creating. But I do think there’s something inherently elitist and exclusionary in saying that there’s only one right way to create, and that only those with enough money and resources are allowed access.

The some obvious unfairness to telling people that if they can’t afford “real” training, they can’t be artists. But there’s an even bigger problem: by telling people that only those who can afford extensive training get to be “real” artists, we’re ensuring that art remains a domain only for the wealthy and powerful.

Narratives govern our lives. Tsubasa Yamaguchi famously said, “Art is a language without words,” and I’m inclined to agree. Because we can say more through the arts than we might be able to with words alone, making and sharing art in its various forms allows us the chance to challenge dominant narratives. If we tell ourselves the story that everything’s fine, nothing will change. But if we can alter the story we tell ourselves to say that change needs to happen, there’s some chance that it actually will. People will only try to change things if they believe something is wrong. Change the story, change reality.

So here’s the thing: if only the privileged make art, privileged narratives are perpetuated.

Part of moving towards a more just world is being open to expanding our ideas of what counts as normative, good, and beautiful. And in all of these cases, but particularly in regard to beauty, the arts have a unique ability to challenge entrenched ways of thinking and help us to see beauty in new places. By taking away the gatekeeping around what counts as a “real” artist, we allow more people the chance to challenge narratives that fail to acknowledge the beauty and goodness in those who don’t fit our reductionistic, colonized ideas of who “deserves” or has “earned” these labels, based either on having inherent traits that are favored, or by developing normative traits through conformity and compliance.

So what does it mean to tell me that I’m not a dancer? To say that because I move differently than I might if I had trained in more conventional ways from childhood, my body can never fit within the imposed parameters? What does it mean that my body, ever crooked due to scoliosis and sometimes uncooperative due to chronic illness, will never hold itself the exactly the way a dancer body “should?” If I can’t dance right, should I never dance at all?

Movement has been my primary means of managing chronic pain for years, and for this reason among many others, I refuse to believe that my identity as a creative mover, a researcher of my own body, as a DANCER should be locked up in an ivory tower that I can only access if I force my non-normative body to behave itself and cough up money and resources that I don’t have. Because then my body would just be another “weird,” “ugly” body that would never get to move at all. Movement should not be a privilege reserved for the white, cis, straight, or able-bodied.

George Washington Carver said, “Education is the key to unlock a golden door of freedom.” And I don’t necessarily disagree. I can still see the value in working with great teachers, getting feedback, introducing yourself to new ideas and aesthetics, and pushing yourself as an artist. But given the power dynamics and barriers still inherent in education and training, I don’t think it’s fair to lock people out and tell them their creativity and perspectives aren’t legitimate if they can’t access these things.

So yes – because I have put in the work to study my own body and explore various styles of dance, and because I am challenging notions of what physical beauty and expressive movement can be – I am a dancer.