The Mystery of Standup
I am continuously perplexed about the place of standup in American and world culture. Almost alone among the art forms, it does not receive governmental or charitable subsidy. Why should the opera be subsidized rather than standup? Perhaps because standup is viewed by the “elite” as a kind of “low brow” form of entertainment. On the other hand, standup may serve vital social functions as a form or release of pent up social frustrations. It also can serve as a “bonding” mechanism - groups of people who disagree and may even be hostile suddenly discover that they laugh at the same jokes. Standup may also be the first place in a society that discontent or dissatisfaction with public policy measures or consumer products rears its head. It’s all very confusing. I am also confused about the “stealing material” issue - let me preface this by saying I don’t do it. But the bigger issue is why standup is different from music and drama in which performers use material authored by others. Suppose a standup comedian acknowledged that some of his material was authored by others and than performed it (perhaps more effectively than the original author). I know this sounds like heresy but wouldn’t such a system have the potential for producing a funnier product (combining the best material with the best performers). I am just throwing out some iconoclastic hand grenades here for comment.
Comments: