In my mind, the plays I was writing were extreme examples of art for art's sake. I didn't necessarily think that other people would love them, though I thought they probably would.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
All art to me is an empathetic act. Whoever's telling a story is trying to transfer emotion into someone else.
I think that plays are probably the most personal, because it's just me in charge, but sometimes it's just really - I think that there's honor in being a good artist, and there's honor in being a good 'craftsperson.'
I think you can appreciate different interpretations. Art is not a contest. I can even appreciate hearing someone play something in a way that I wouldn't.
Everyone thinks they can write a play; you just write down what happened to you. But the art of it is drawing from all the moments of your life.
I've seen plays that are, objectively, total messes that move me in ways that their tidier brethren do not. That's the romantic mystery of great theater. Translating this ineffability into printable prose is a challenge that can never be fully met.
I love what Monet, Picasso, Van Gogh and Jesus all said - that love is really the driving principle of the creative act. In fact, they would say that great art is always inspired by love.
In grammar school I read 'Act One' by Moss Hart, and being a playwright struck me as the most magical and romantic career anyone could have... But I never did write a play.
Art is so subjective, and people can react however they want.
I love writing plays because they are living, fluid things that are energised by the producer, designers, musicians, actors and audience.
I always question if somebody else is going to love my films. I think that's what art is about - it's so individual.