We sat down for a quick chat with Cian Griffin about his latest project, Lee. The show will run from 24 Sept to 18 Oct at Park Theatre.
What drew you to Lee Krasner as the subject of a play, and why did you want to spotlight her 13 years after Pollock’s death?
I’m intrigued by the unsung heroes in life. So much has been written about Jackson Pollock, I don’t think there’s anything I could add to his story. But Lee has her own narrative, and I wanted to be a part of exploring that. 1969 is the setting because I wanted to show her life after a significant span of time has passed since Pollock’s death in 1956. She’s moved into Pollock’s studio, she’s on her own creative path, unburdened with having to put Pollock first. 1969 is also a significant year in American history. It was a time of great political and social upheaval, with the ongoing Vietnam war, the summer of love, the Manson murders and major developments in the Feminist movement.
The play is framed around a fictional encounter with a student — how does that device help you explore questions of authenticity, influence, and legacy?
When writing about real life people, I think it’s important to include all points of view. I always say that in most plays, there is a character that represents the audience, someone they can identify with and who may react as the audience would. This character can be used to question motives, advance the action and give the other characters an opportunity to explain themselves. Hank is the trigger that kick starts the play. He causes Lee to think about the past in ways she may not want to.
Lee Krasner was often overshadowed by Jackson Pollock; what did your research reveal about the sacrifices she made for his career?
It’s well documented that Lee Krasner was instrumental in helping Jackson with his sobriety. His most successful creative period was when he was sober. She tirelessly championed his work, making sure that the most influential art critics and buyers saw his work and supported him. The kind of energy this required had to have affected her own creative output in a detrimental way but it’s impossible to quantify the impact it had.
How do you see the play speaking to contemporary debates about plagiarism, originality, and the value of women’s work in the arts?
Artists being influenced by each other is simply a given. There is nothing new under the sun, we can only offer our own interpretation. This is something that’s clearly discussed between the characters in the play. Set in 1969, the playalso makes a point of saying that art by men is consistently valued higher than their female counterparts. That hasn’t changed. Today’s auctions of women’s art versus men’s continues to show a vast disparity. As a society, we should be questioning why that is, not just accepting it. I believe it’s rooted in deep seated societal notions that men are worth more than women, which is unfortunate.
The recreated artworks are central to the production — how do you balance biography, fiction, and visual art within the story?
In the case of LEE, all the visual art is there to propel the narrative. The characters discuss the paintings in terms of how Lee was feeling at the time she painted them, so in that respect, each canvas is a snapshot of her state of mind at the time. They play an intrinsic part in telling her story. It’s a wonderful device for informing the audience without giving a long lecture. They also provide a framework from which to weave the fictional part of the play.
What do you hope audiences leave questioning about art, relationships, and the compromises made for love and recognition?
I think that much of the audience may identify with the emotions that the characters go through, in particular Lee. Anyone who has made sacrifices for their partner will recognise themselves in her. But it’s not told from a victim point of view. Lee is no victim, the compromises she made, she made willingly. And if you see the play, you will discover there is redemption in the end.