something i've always found interesting [read: a bit ridiculous] in my years of sitting in long ass programming meetings, think-in sessions and the like is the way some arts organisations don't see repetition as a valuable cog in the legacy wheel.

an idea is thrown into the air and caught with "oh we did that 5yrs ago", and not as a means to say "so how do we learn from it, try it again with new voices, new tastes, new instincts, how do we grow?" but as a means to say "we've ticked that box and it isn't worth revisiting"

despite organisational shifts in that timeframe, let alone pools of new makers and thinkers coming to the forefront of the sector. it's almost said with this indignation as if suggesting to revisit old ideas is an insult. legacy, to them, is a numbers game, not one of longevity.

and all this means is that we sit in rooms for hours that add up to years, trying to rethink structures when we have closets full of skeletons we already created and dared not to look at again, even though they might hold the answers to the questions we're asking

and i don't get it. why create these big and bountiful acts of creativity and expression only for them to end up as a one trick pony? why don't we allow these ideas to metamorphosise into something that connects then with now. the idea of 'newness' is overrated.

the 'onto the next one' attitude of the arts sees projects that held so much purpose often romanticized as phenomena that can never happen again - it's an odd nostalgia, like the learning and recreating would ruin the memory.

i reckon we'd get a lot further if we revisited past ideas that were realised before. to learn, grow, change, adapt, take from the things that worked and evaluate the things that didn't.

ANYWAY this thread has no conclusion, stay in your yards, big up the essential workers, free Tory Lanez, etc.