I wonder what would have happened if automation and computers had

"I wonder what would have happened if automation and computers had existed when 'Oklahoma!' was having its out-of-town try-out, and three days before closing in Boston, when it was still called 'Away We Go,' they added a new song called 'Oklahoma!' I don't think that could happen today. It's almost impossible to change musicals on the go now." These words by Andrew Lloyd Webber reflect a profound meditation on the evolution of art and technology, and the delicate balance between creativity and mechanical progress. Webber is lamenting a time when the spontaneity of artistic creation—especially in the world of theater—was still alive. In the case of Oklahoma!, a musical that was initially called Away We Go, the addition of a new song at the last minute became a defining moment in theatrical history. The ability to make such dynamic changes in response to audience feedback or the unfolding of inspiration was part of the magic of live performance. Webber reflects on how, in today’s world, technology has made such impromptu decisions far more difficult, if not impossible, because of the rigid structures and automation that now govern the arts.

In the ancient world, artists, writers, and musicians were able to work with fluidity and immediacy, guided by their own creative instincts. Think of Homer, whose epic poems, The Iliad and The Odyssey, were passed down orally, evolving with each retelling and performance. The oral tradition itself was a dynamic one, where storytellers would adapt their tales to the audience, weaving in new ideas or motifs based on the present context. Similarly, the ancient Greek theater, such as that of Sophocles or Euripides, allowed for changes in the performance to be made in real-time—new scenes could be added, dialogues adjusted, and even the chorus modified as the play was performed for different audiences. This fluidity gave the artist the freedom to respond instantly to the needs of the performance, just as the creators of Oklahoma! once did.

Take, for example, the story of Shakespeare, whose plays were constantly evolving during their runs. It is said that he often made adjustments to his works based on the reactions and suggestions of the audience. Plays like Hamlet or Macbeth were regularly modified over time, as Shakespeare refined his scripts. The playwright's ability to adapt his work, to innovate on the go, was a hallmark of theater in its golden age. In this sense, the theater was more of a living organism, constantly growing and responding to the pulse of the audience, a stark contrast to today’s highly regulated, technologically driven processes.

In today’s world, as Webber points out, the artistic process has been bound by the rigidity of technology and automation. The tools we have today, from computers to digital software, while empowering the creation of complex works of art, have also created constraints. The process of making a musical today involves not just the creativity of the composer or lyricist but the intricate coordination of various departments—sound engineers, lighting designers, set constructors, and software specialists. The pace at which art is created has slowed, and any last-minute changes to a musical now require coordination across a vast infrastructure of professionals and machinery. What was once a dynamic process, full of spontaneity, has become a mechanized one, driven by technology rather than the fluidity of the artist’s vision.

A modern example of this shift can be seen in the creation of films today. The early cinema pioneers like Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton had the freedom to improvise on set, creating new scenes or jokes on the fly, responding to the moment and the audience. Today, however, films are often produced through meticulous pre-production and post-production processes, with every detail accounted for long before the cameras start rolling. The freedom that Chaplin and Keaton had to create spontaneously is rare in today’s world, where automation, digital effects, and extensive planning are the norm. The modern filmmaker is often locked into the structures laid out before shooting ever begins.

The lesson Webber offers us is one of balance between technology and creativity. While technology has allowed for more complex, polished, and accessible works of art, it has also imposed limitations on the spontaneous act of creation that once defined the artistic process. The artists of the ancient world, whether they were poets, playwrights, or musicians, understood that art thrives not in a rigid system, but in the freedom to create, adjust, and respond to the present moment. As we move forward, we must remember the value of fluidity in the artistic process, the importance of remaining open to change, and the need to preserve the freedom to adapt in real time.

In practical terms, this means that we must embrace innovation without sacrificing the organic nature of creation. While technology can and should enhance the creative process, it must not replace the instinct and immediacy that give art its vitality. Just as Oklahoma! was able to change at the last minute and transform into the classic we know today, so too must we allow our own creative endeavors to grow and evolve, even as we utilize the tools that modernity has provided. Let us ensure that technology serves our creativity, and not the other way around. In doing so, we preserve the essence of artistic expression, where the moment of creation remains as alive and spontaneous as ever.