Cornerstone Omnibus

"The Institute, in particular, has raised discussions about the relative value of creating an exciting spectacle versus doing something more modest, in a material sense, that the community could reasonably aspire to emulate when we’re gone. "

There's also a whole world of questions behind that comment. How pragmatic should Cornerstone's teaching be? How inspirational? What exactly is Cornerstone trying to "leave behind"? What are the responsibilities of the company to past collaborators?

Some of the folks in the Durfee transcripts I read talked about "Cornerstone guilt," which I think had to do with lingering uncertainty about their roles in the lives of people in the communities they have worked in. This operates on a couple of levels: one on one (particularly in cases where company members have worked with folks who have personal problems, maybe substance abuse being an obvious one), group to group (meaning Cornerstone and local groups), and everything in between.

I've dealth with this a lot in social service circles: psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and so on have professional codes of conduct that attempt to define those lines. I don't think they're always successful, but their maps are a little more detailed than the one Cornerstone is dealing with.

It's certainly good to remember that there are potentially two ways of talking about everything (ensemble show vs. community collaboration), and that the issue of legacy is still an ongoing debate.