In reading this article, and the responses in the comments section, and on other sites, most of which seem to engage in the, “Jane you ignorant slut” style of debate, I started to feel a little crazy.
One of the things I want most for people in the arts to do
is stop complaining about what their colleagues have, that they don’t. As if
there is a direct correlation between the grant I got and the one you didn’t,
the gig you got and then one I was rejected from. If they hadn’t
picked you or your kind, they’d have picked me or mine. I don't think that kind of hating helps. We all work hard. We all deserve it.
I think it’s important to recognize systemic problems (whether related
to the arts or not) that need improving, and to call out specific examples of
where those problems manifest. But I think, ultimately, to blame each other is
not helpful, and in fact becomes its own kind of opportunism.
It would be great if rural art was more robustly supported.
But then, it would also be great if artists in urban cultural centers were more
robustly supported, too. (Very often "support" in an urban center means "an opportunity to work for free" - the euphemism is often something like 'increased visibility' - in the service of a venue whose staff is working for almost-free. If we expect that it has to be kind of work or one locale over the other,
I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere.
In so many online conversations, it quickly becomes a
version of one side saying “just do it (like
I did)!” or “in my
day/neighborhood/city (circle one) we
just made it happen,” or “be the
change you want to see in the world, douchebag!” Meanwhile the other side
says, “you have no idea what it’s like
today/where I live/in my brain (circle one),” or “you didn’t even hear what I was saying!,” or “punk is/is not (circle one) dead.”
Here are some questions. I hope people will respond in the comments.
1. Whether you’re in the position of maker, interpreter, scholar, producer or critic, what are you and your peers telling each other about the state of the field that might actually not be true, but that by saying it over and over you're reinforcing?
2. Why does theater seem so irrelevant to so many? Would we be better off if it mattered to more people?
3. What would happen if the NEA’s annual budget was
$1,000,000,000 (a little less than 10 times what it is now, but still only
about $3 per American man, woman and child per year). How do we get there?
4. What are the best kinds of exchanges among artists in
urban, rural, and suburban environments, and how could those happen more
readily?
9 comments:
Thank you for this!
"(Very often "support" in an urban center means "an opportunity to work for free" - the euphemism is often something like 'increased visibility' - in the service of a venue whose staff is working for almost-free."
That is all so very true! Sometimes it's just nice to have one's reality acknowledged by another human being! I had that pleasant experience often in our Real Community Engagement workshop which you co-lead this past weekend. Thanks and I look forward to seeing some of your art here in the Fort Lauderdale area!
Here's are questions for you
1. what talents are being ignored and what lives are being ruined by ignoring (and by ignoring, supporting) a dysfunctional -- nay, destructive -- arts system?
2. Why is it that when anyone raises questions of fairness and justice in funding people working in the arts legs that are benefitting inevitably say we should all be more positive and supportive of each other?
3. Why not deal with the issues raised by the article, not the comments?
My post was really about a tenor and tone I find frustrating, myopic and unproductive on the internet, especially with regard to theater (because I read those blogs more), rather than being strictly about your article. It used your piece and the comments, both of which I found at the very least myopic, as a jumping off point.
I'll respond in more detail, if you'd like, to your article, when you answer my questions. I'll respond to your questions presently:
1. what talents are being ignored and what lives are being ruined by ignoring (and by ignoring, supporting) a dysfunctional -- nay, destructive -- arts system?
I don't actually see a lot of people ignoring the dysfunctional system, I see people calling it out, from Mr. Daisey on down the line. I see the system critiqued on Howlround, at the APAP conference, through the NEFA touring grants, and at TCG. Do I think all those critiques are well-wrought? No, I don't. Am I sure that it's doing any good? Not entirely but I think there is some hope. But I don't see the dysfunction ignored.
Also: lives ruined?
2. Why is it that when anyone raises questions of fairness and justice in funding people working in the arts legs that are benefitting inevitably say we should all be more positive and supportive of each other?
Because there are artists who face the same hurdles in the big rich theater mecca of New York that you all face in your smaller cities and towns.
As I said in the blog post, very clearly, I think there should be more funding for rural artists. I also think there should be more funding for urban artists. I think we all need the dough.
For instance, in Australia, their government arts budget is the equivalent of $16 per man, woman and child, per year. If we had that in the US, our NEA would be at about $5.6 billion, rather than it's current $155 million.
Who gives a shit who runs the NEA when we're competing for crumbs compared to our first-world colleagues? (we could, however, have a whole other conversation about those countries' lack of diversified funding sources). If we had half of what they do, we'd all be doing much better. Shifting the focus from urban to rural would be like sliding the crumbs to one side of the plate, which would still leave us all wanting a nice juicy burger (beef, veggie or turkey).
I've put forth this same point of view with my arty, lavishly funded NYC colleagues as well. As we rode in our limos to the latest downtown theater project opening gala, dressed in our urban finery, I've called friends out for complaining that libraries get too much money compared to arts organizations, that MacArthur Fellows shouldn't apply for the same grants as mere Guggenheim recipients and so on.
Because I don't think that any of us working in the arts deserves less. I don't even begrudge LORT theater directors, some of whom program what is in my opinion soul-crushingly middling work, for their six-figure salaries. I think we should all get paid.
And on a personal note, not everyone wants to stay in their communities. Some of came to New York and other big cultural centers because we felt outcast where we lived. Some of us felt claustrophobic, some of us were in danger. So we came where we found kin, where we felt safe and empowered to work. Should you have access to resources if you do stay? Surely! But so should there be resources for artists who cannot or choose not to remain.
3. Why not deal with the issues raised by the article, not the comments?
Because I chose not to. See above. Why not answer my questions? I don't think the issues raised by the article were new or newly illuminated. I found myself intrigued by the tone of the debate. I wrote about that. 'Cause I wanted to.
Well, I suppose I could respond to your question about not responding to your questions "Because I chose not to," or, perhaps more to the point, "because I wasn't asked to." You couldn't even find the professional grace to name the article or the author, but instead referred to it as "this article."
I'll answer your questions, and then respond to your comments.
1. "Whether you’re in the position of maker, interpreter, scholar, producer or critic, what are you and your peers telling each other about the state of the field that might actually not be true, but that by saying it over and over you're reinforcing?"
I am telling people over and over that the current way of theatrical production -- from education to hiring to funding to scheduling -- is draining the life out of our arts scene, homogenizing the work that is done, and privileging certain areas over others. I find it difficult to see how that is not true. My purpose is to raise consciousness about this.
2. "Why does theater seem so irrelevant to so many? Would we be better off if it mattered to more people?"
It seems irrelevant because we have never re-examined our strengths in light of the rise of mass media. It seems irrelevant because we have lost touch with the deepest wellsprings of human life. It seems irrelevant because it combines triviality with boringness -- a deadly combination. We would be better off if it mattered to more people -- by which I mean more small groups of people, not a larger mass public.
3. "What would happen if the NEA’s annual budget was $1,000,000,000 (a little less than 10 times what it is now, but still only about $3 per American man, woman and child per year). How do we get there?"
What would happen is that the same damn institutions who are deadening the arts ecosystem would get even more money to do the same. Would more money be nice? Sure. Until theatre artists start thinking deeply about what they bring to the world -- and start thinking from viewpoints other than their own -- more money will just mean more of the same mediocrity.
4. "What are the best kinds of exchanges among artists in urban, rural, and suburban environments, and how could those happen more readily?"
We don't need "exchanges," we need vibrant, rooted arts organizations committed to serving a specific community. The sharing of ideas and best practices, and the sharing of our collective history (and not the narrowly defined history that currently passes for American Theatre History) would help provide context and inspiration.
Now to respond to your comments:
"Lives ruined?"
Indeed: lives ruined. How many young, creative theatre artists are unable to share their gifts because of the way we have structured the arts system? What effect does that have on their lives? How many young people choose not to engage in the arts because they think they have to live a certain life in a particular place and they don't want to? As a professor, I see it all too often, and it isn't an overstatement as much as you'd like to diminish it.
Also, the critiques of the system at TCG, APAP,and other such mainstream venues lead to no action, no changes, nothing but a sigh and a shrug. When I see TCG do something more than promote the usual work by the usual people, and when I see them publish actual critiques of the system, then I'll relent. But believe me, I have firsthand experience: they don't want that kind of critique.
Your response concerning fairness misses the point. Yes, there are urban artists who struggle as well -- granted without question. I have never asserted otherwise. But that is not reason to ignore others, or to expect them to stay silent in the face of a system that marginalizes them. Analyze the distribution of grants from foundations and from governmental sources and you will find a privileged group of arts organizations, and a much larger marginalized group. To expect solidarity between the two groups because there should be a bigger pie is insulting.
I would also point out that "this article" was about theatre education -- it was about the way that young artists are fed a single story, and given no idea that there are alternatives. But you "chose not to" deal with that, because it is unarguable, and it serves the status quo.
Finally, as you know, I have never suggested that "everybody" stay in their communities. Hell, I didn't stay in my home town, and I wouldn't live there on a bet. But it shouldn't be a requirement to move to an urban area, much less NYC. My proposals involve equity, not conformity.
I worry that we are the only two people reading this string, but hopefully Mike will chime in later.
"You couldn't even find the professional grace to name the article or the author, but instead referred to it as "this article.""
I’m not a professional blogger so didn't feel beholden to that professional grace. I believe firmly in the ability of people to use their mice and click a link to your article.
“I am telling people over and over that the current way of theatrical production -- from education to hiring to funding to scheduling -- is draining the life out of our arts scene, homogenizing the work that is done, and privileging certain areas over others. I find it difficult to see how that is not true. My purpose is to raise consciousness about this.”
I don't see homogenous work. I see vibrant new communities of theater-makers arising in many, many places. I see artists and work with coming from places as diverse as Berlin and Culleoka, TN, making a perfectly well-deserved stink about the lack of cultural, geographic and gender diversity in the productions taken on by theaters, and then making the awesome work that backs it up. But it’s a slow, slow change. So that is where I see us differing. There are a lot of bright spots. I didn’t feel like your article shed new light.
I see big producers slowly beginning to take on devised work. I see the intersection of theater and social practice from the visual art world being greeted head-on. I see the evolution of civic theater. I see funders paying attention. I love all this evolution.
I think you conflate the homogenization of theater in larger venues and institutions, and within the educational structures, with the field as a whole. And while I do feel the traditional model of theater education sells the field short by and large, there are wonderful bright spots, such as ASU, UT Austin and other schools. Perhaps UNC Asheville, but I know the other two better.
“It seems irrelevant because we have never re-examined our strengths in light of the rise of mass media.”
Many of us are doing that all the time. Though, sure, if you just look at mainstream work, you’re right. But isn’t that kind of elementary?
“It seems irrelevant because we have lost touch with the deepest wellsprings of human life.”
Define we, please. I don't feel omniscient enough to judge who's lost touch with what.
“It seems irrelevant because it combines triviality with boringness -- a deadly combination.”
Yes! I agree! Again, in the mainstream, and in the work that aspires to be mainstream. There’s all kinds of awesome stuff happening in the margins. Some of it even gets funded and produced. Not all of it from the NY/CHI/LA axis.
We would be better off if it mattered to more people -- by which I mean more small groups of people, not a larger mass public.
Interesting. I like this.
But wait, there's more:
About the NEA: "What would happen is that the same damn institutions who are deadening the arts ecosystem would get even more money to do the same."
How can you be so sure of that? My experience of NEA funding is that they are trying, even prioritizing, reaching a broad swath of American theater, but there are literally not enough dollars to do the job. The last chair of the NEA, before Landesman made that an explicit point.
So, for instance, when I was last in Asheville (my uncle Boone and his partner Claudia, maybe you know them, designed the Laughing Seed and Malaprops, and build homes there), the Green Door was set to thrive, I don't know if it still is, because it has been awhile since I checked. I know they were on the NEA's radar, and I know if they had a dependable $100K a year or so from the Endowment, they'd have been a real cultural hub. My guess is that the NEA wouldn't have been able to fund them at that level, unless their budget were around a million or more. My feeling is that, until that equation changes, and changes because we as a nation fund the arts more robustly, no one will benefit from shifting the money from one place to another. But this is clearly a point of disagreement.
"Until theatre artists start thinking deeply about what they bring to the world -- and start thinking from viewpoints other than their own -- more money will just mean more of the same mediocrity."
Listen Gloomy McGloomerson, I just don't see only mediocrity in the field. And again, here is where your generalizations rub me the wrong way. I see a lot of excellence, insight and revelation. On a mainstream level? Hell no, but that is never the way of the mainstream. I see artists trying to embolden and change the form, everywhere I go. Does it happen at LORT theaters? No, that model doesn't work, nor does, as you point out, the training that programs young performers to point toward those kinds of venues. But as a young theater maker it is still possible to use your brain, look and listen, and end up making radical, insightful work. I see that all the time.
We don't need "exchanges," we need vibrant, rooted arts organizations committed to serving a specific community.
Why are these two things mutually exclusive?
The sharing of ideas and best practices, and the sharing of our collective history (and not the narrowly defined history that currently passes for American Theatre History) would help provide context and inspiration.
How is that not an exchange?
"Indeed: lives ruined...As a professor, I see it all too often, and it isn't an overstatement as much as you'd like to diminish it.
I'd like to diminish it because it's a vast oversimplification.
"Also, the critiques of the system at TCG, APAP,and other such mainstream venues lead to no action, no changes, nothing but a sigh and a shrug. When I see TCG do something more than promote the usual work by the usual people, and when I see them publish actual critiques of the system, then I'll relent. But believe me, I have firsthand experience: they don't want that kind of critique."
So we share the first-hand experience. Do I think it's happening fast enough? NO. Do I think enough of them are hopping on board? NO. On some level, sure, the system is rigged.
But, man, so is every system. I don't think, again, and I don't think there's a way for me to believe otherwise, that, given the small amount of money in the official channels, that prioritizing one form of work over another is going to help.
Your response concerning fairness misses the point. Yes, there are urban artists who struggle as well -- granted without question. I have never asserted otherwise. But that is not reason to ignore others, or to expect them to stay silent in the face of a system that marginalizes them.
I didn't suggest we marginalize them or that anyone stay silent. I just don't think getting an NEA Chair that prioritizes rural work over urban work will help unless there's a lot more money in the system.
Analyze the distribution of grants from foundations and from governmental sources and you will find a privileged group of arts organizations, and a much larger marginalized group.
That gap between different sized institutions exists everywhere, not just in the divide you describe. White institutions get more than institutions run by or for people of color. To make that about big cities is not enough.
To expect solidarity between the two groups because there should be a bigger pie is insulting.
I think it's insulting to ask people to fight their colleagues over pittances. I think everyone in the public sector - the arts, education, non-corporate scientific research and public works - should be allied and arguing for a society that values itself enough to invest in its vision and future.
I would also point out that "this article" was about theatre education -- it was about the way that young artists are fed a single story, and given no idea that there are alternatives. But you "chose not to" deal with that, because it is unarguable, and it serves the status quo.
I didn't deal with it head-on because it lumped vast and diverse swaths of the field into one big faceless mass. I didn't deal with it because I thought the idea of having an NEA chair promote "local over national" is kind of silly, given that the Endowment's name starts with "National", and forsaking the cities is just counterproductive to the field.
Post a Comment