←Recommendations of No More Flowers

I love the notion that what we see in a work of art is a projection of ourselves, imposing meaning from our own subjective stance, and often how much we (well, men in this case) decide what it is we want to see based on our prescribed notion of an artist based on their gender/sex. Freud, man. Dans Hall turns Freud (and by extension, Lacan) on his head. Mulvey-esque joy. I highly recommend this play!

Sometimes a flower is just a flower. Sometimes the interpretation of a piece of art says more about the viewer than the artist. Sometimes Freud is just Freud. This drama about objectification and interpretation is laced with moments of true comedy. You’ll love this show and if you have an art degree, like me, you’ll love it even more. This brilliant work deserved to be staged.

Given my art history background, I find myself greatly amused by DANA HALL's short piece NO MORE FLOWERS. I adore the idea of FREUD throwing his theories upon O'KEEFFE, just as many viewers do when examining her work. Is he right? Who knows, but sometimes a flower is just a flower, and O'KEEFFE has had enough of the patriarchal lens. Brilliant.

What happens when Sigmund Freud analyzes Gerogia O’Keefe’s, Black Iris? As you can imagine, his interpretation is wildly different from hers. What a great script. I’d love to see it take the stage.

This is a ten-minute two-hander that could've only been written by a therapist, and I mean this in the very best way. Dana Hall expertly captured the voices of Sigmund Freud and Georgia O'Keeffe in such a real (and unexpectedly comedic) banter. Dana's no-nonsense portrayal of Georgia O'Keeffe was the highlight of the piece for me and I enjoyed seeing her win the day!

A winning combination of art, analysis and what is in the eye of the beholder. Hall combines all and let’s us see that what we actually see is the artist’s intent and no more. But -Maybe art is different from all eyes and just maybe that is fine. A lovely commentary on how art reaches us - individually.

I would hate to over analyze, so I will simply state this play is brilliant and clever. Art is meant to be shared, and once that occurs, the artist has no control over how others will interpret it. That’s the beauty of art. That doesn’t mean an artist has to listen to an annoying presence like Sigmund Freud. This really needs to be produced!

Brilliant! How often is art altered in its consumption? Too many experts. The experience of art itself can become a minefield because of the myriad of interpretations. Dana Hall gives fed up artists a voice in this sneak peek at two of history’s great influencers. I could watch these characters go back and forth all day!

This is a remarkable play. I am floored. It is sublime. In just a few pages Hall develops an intricate back and forth between O'Keeffee and Freud that is as vivid as paintings themselves. The dialogue is smart and fully layered. She doesn't hold back on the ridiculousness of Freud's mansplaining repulsiveness or the deception that we have all somehow been had by this man's life work as it applies to people and perspectives he could not possibly understand. I mean, sometimes a flower is just a flower. Anyway, it's brilliant. It's decisive. It's excellent. Highly recommend!

"Sometimes a flower is just a flower."
In this clever piece, O'Keeffe learns that Freud does not belong in the art studio.
With Freud's constant insistences about O'Keeffe's paintings, despite O'Keeffe's negations of his theories, Hall has managed to capture the frustration of misinterpretation and over-analysis in art. Plus, the moment when Freud goes to sleep and O'Keeffe has a moment to fully explain her true inspiration (which differs largely from the psychologist's assumptions) is absolutely beautiful and heartbreaking. This play gets me fired up. It's really interesting and smart. Everyone should read it...produce it too!