The other day, in a comment to my column on Americans and their 'love' for the mediocre, Rob Kozlowski wrote: "American theatre isn't in the mainstream anymore, and it hasn't *truly* been in the mainstream since before the advent of talkies in 1927. When you look at the American theatre in the late 19 century and early 20th century, when it was truly at its popular zenith, the vast majority of productions were mediocre potboilers filled with terrible dialogue and outrageous melodrama, designed to fill the hundreds of 4,000-seat theatres that littered the country. Once radio and then talking pictures and then television came around, American theatre had to adjust.

American theatre had to come up with ideas and visions that were simply not possible in the popular media, in order to survive on their own terms with smaller audiences in a more specialized field." Scott Walters wonders "Has Anything Changed Since the 1920s?" and leads us with a quote from Harold Clurman about his dissatisfaction with contemporary theater (written in the '20's).

So, the question of the day becomes - when exactly did theater become irrelevant in America and whose fault is it? First part of the question to be examined is the 'in America" element. Is theater somehow more relevant in other countries?

After about ten minutes research on Google, it seems that the United States is rather unbelievably low in it's national sponsorship of the performing arts when compared to most other democratic nations. It appears that theater is either A) more relevant in other countries or B) merely part of a nationally-subsidized package in a more socialist world (like PBS in the US). Either way, my focus is about American theater because it is it's own unique entity, both without the long history of French, British or Russian theater, or the "internationalist" flavor of Latin American theater.

Second, is it irrelevant? Was it ever truly relevant? Theater, as a means of storytelling, is the only means of presenting an immediate story - no canned response - living actors in front of a living audience, breathing the same air, hearing the same sounds, dealing with each other.

Without the audience there is no dialogue, no communion of wills. Concerning forms of diversion, books are a solitary effort, television and film are a one-sided conversation, games (both live and video) are a real time interaction with others and are ultimately a diversion devoid of art (although it can be argued that both live sports and video games have a degree of artistry to them). As Rob points out, early popular theater spoke primarily to purient interest, momentary opportunities to lose oneself in the troubles or hijinks of another.

In terms of American theater, the sole invention that it can lay claim to is the modern musical, having been first legitimized with "Oklahoma" in 1943. We have our playwrights who tell our stories, but beyond the small percentage of regular theater-goers in America, how many Americans could actually identify Arthur Miller, Sam Shepard, Christopher Durang, or David Mamet? How many could tell you who Willy Loman is?

A larger percentage could certainly identify the more popular works of Stephen Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Webber, but unless it has been made into a film, couldn't name a single one of their works. When only 10% of a society is even aware of our most visible artists, how can theater be considered relevant to that society? If the widespread lack of familiarity with theater challenges it's relevancy as an art form, does this same criteria apply to the simple one-on-one conversation?

I've read that "conversation is a lost art" and, if so, where did we lose it? I still have great conversations - every summer, we grill on Sundays and have an open invite policy for artists in the Chicago community. We eat grilled meat and vegetables and generally converse for hours.

Are those Sundays irrelevant because they are not "mainstream" or readily available to the general public? Perhaps the reason theater seems irrelevant is that we are comparing it to the wrong art form. The American tendency is to view mass media as the direct competitor, the sibling of live theater.

American theater artists like to compare/contrast live theater with television and film. We embrace the economic challenges of these mass produced stories as if we even had a chance. Arthur Miller is brilliant, a voice of his generation, but in terms of immediate fame and fortune, Harrison Ford will always win the notoriety battle.

Perhaps theater should be looked at as a conversation - meant to be held in intimate settings and on a smaller scale. This perspective certainly makes Broadway look hopelessly out of touch and outmatched in it's search to compete with film. It makes the spectacle of Cameron MacIntosh seem a ridiculous waste of money in effort to reach the largest percentage of the crowd.

Finally, whose fault is it that theater is viewed as irrelevant? It's our fault, of course. We in the field, comparing ourselves and our artform to enterprises devoted almost solely to the selling of products (television) or the hopes of mass appeal (film).

By embracing what is good about these art forms, we negate what is unique and relevant about our own. It's simple - the more people involved in a conversation, the less appealing it is. Continue to increase the participants of the conversation and it becomes one-sided.

Once the audience of the lecture becomes too large for the lecturer to make contact with, it becomes hopelessly, sadly irrelevant.