Although it began with some low comedy about accent
impenetrability and then some social class tension drama, things picked up to
make for quite a thought-provoking play. Two quick things stood out. The first
was a plausibly open ended question of the necessary connection (or not) of the
group, their work and their profession.
Did they have to be closely connected to their particular community to
have the artistic identity they had?
Second, there was an interesting issue of how to address
the contingency of the fact that just that group of people, gathered originally
(or so the play asserted) for other reasons came to prominence. Did it show, as
the group’s Professor Higgins asserted, that just anyone given the right
opportunities for self expression could paint? Or, as the painters themselves
suggested in response, (in the play, that is,) that just they were the people
from the community who, as a matter of fact, had any natural ability?
Appealingly, neither forced choice seemed plausible but it wasn’t clear what
that left.
