Bob & Dave & Ren

Written and Directed by Ben Gansky

Carnegie Mellon University School of Drama Production, March 2016

Who are Bob, Dave, and Ren?

On Saturday, February 13, after the first week of rehearsal of Bob & Dave & Ren,
dramaturg Holly Dennis sat down with director Ben Gansky to discuss that question,
among others. Here is an excerpt of the conversation.
BG: The title characters of Bob, Dave, and Ren are inspired by real-life figures. Bob and
Dave are inspired by the visual artists Robert Irwin and David Hockney, and Ren by
Lawrence Weschler, an author who wrote biographies about both Irwin and Hockney. The
characters are based less on these artists biographies and more on their ideas and
philosophies regarding art.
HD: What was the inspiration for having this piece not be a straight, narrative play?
BG: I think that when it comes to the kinds of tools that artists have access to to try to
pursue these different goals of what art should be, narrative fits really well into this one
particular tool kit and is maybe not such an appropriate tool for a different kind of
intention. So, I knew that part of this show should be narrative and that part of it should
probably not be narrative. Then, I was interested also in trying to find this third thing that
was simultaneously possible to be read as narrative and possible to be read as nonnarrative. So, thats really Acts 1, 2 and 3 narrative, non-narrative, and maybe this thing
in between that youre able to project a narrative onto.

HD: What kind of work are you attracted to as a director?

BG: Im attracted to work that acknowledges that its a performance, and that takes that
acknowledgement beyond a sort of ironic smirk haha we know this is a performance
that is, work that takes that circumstance and does something meaningful with it. Work
that understands that performance situations are contracts, in a sense, between the
performers and the audience and that then takes the terms of those contracts that are often
implicit and assumed and pushes against those limits, or leverages those assumptions to
bring the audience into a place where theyre having an unexpected experience of some
kind.
I like work that mixes
forms, between dance and theatre
and media, video, sound art, and
that also is kind of mixing and
matching styles through history. I
think that feels to me to be a very
contemporary thing, it's not like,
you know, if you were living in
1850, chances are that you had better access to history from 1800 onwards, and previous
to that, your access to that history became more and more diminished the further back
you went. But were living in a time now where digital storage and the internet means
that essentially our access to history is no longer determined by how long ago it was. Our
access to current events is no longer determined by geographically how far away they
are. And so this kind of access, it's equal access to many things. That seems to me to be
something thats, in a fundamental way, novel to the human experience in this part of our
history. So, I like making work that kind of surfs styles and time periods and disciplines.

HD: How has it been directing your own writing?

BG: Its been fun. I kind of know going in what the weak spots might be, and there are
some things that, as I was writing it, I would go, Well, thats a problem, but I guess Ill
leave that for the director to solve. Also, when I was writing it, intentionally leaving for
myself some kinds of gaps and mysteries, because, as a director, one of my favorite
things to do is look at a script and find out what the problems are and try and find
creative solutions to impossible moments. I wanted to leave some of those for myself and
not try and figure it all out in the writing stage.
HD: What do you think art should do?
BG: This is a slight spoiler alert, but, I think that art can do a lot of things. Its precisely
because I have a hard time making my mind up about what it should do that I wanted to
make this piece. In this piece you have two different artists who are positing different
ideas of what art should do. On one hand you have one artist saying art should be about
creating an experience in the present moment that makes you feel acutely alive, and this
other artist whos saying art should transport you and make you feel as though youre part
of the whole of humanity, that your feelings your experiences - are reflected in this
piece of art that someone else has made, and that makes you feel less alone in the world. I
think that those are both beautiful ideas. I have wondered: are these ideas mutually
exclusive? I guess this show is my attempt to find out if they can live in the same work
together.