For some time now, there has been a lot of talk about playwrights getting caught in development hell. There's something to be said for revision, and I respect that aspect of the writing process. I revise. And I do believe in play development. But if theatre companies and producers are striving for complete perfection (who should judge what is considered perfect?), great voices will not have a chance to be heard and evolve.
Maybe complete perfection in art is not always the way to go. Perhaps, there's something to be said for flawed art and creations as long as it offers a unique perspective on the human condition and provides the audience with something that they are seeking. If the voice satisfies them, isn't that enough?
Who really has the experience and power to know when art is ready for presentation? Who has the right to be hyper-critical and judgemental when an artist exposes their soul? For that matter, who has the right to judge what art is right or correct? What each person likes when it comes to art is a matter of taste.
Is it so wrong to give the artist and audience an opportunity to learn, experience, and grow together without getting in their way? Let the artist and audience develop together. Give an artist the opportunity to grow and develop in front of people. Give the artist a chance to learn what works and doesn't work and apply those lessons to the next piece of art. But times have changed; it's not like that anymore. The buck has become more important than the true development of an artist.
Let it live! Let the art live! Let the artist explore and grow! And let the people decide how they feel about the person and product.
Can we be willing to overlook a couple of flaws, expectations, and inspections? Not everybody is a critic; most everybody is a human being. We, as human beings, produce art and connect with art to become better human being and gain perspective and enjoy. What really matters is that everybody involved goes on a journey and gets something out of it. Right?