What is the Value of Theatre?
First of all, this post is part of a Theatre Think Tank initiative - a group effort to crack this nut. Please also visit Theater for the Future, Rat Sass, Theatre Ideas, Parabasis, The Next Stage, Steve on Broadway, Theatre is Territory, Freedom Spice in the New Mash-Up World, Mike Daisey, An Angry White Guy in Chicago, Bite & Smile, That Sounds Cool, A Rhinestone World, GreyZelda Land, On Theatre and Politics, and The Devil Vet.
And be sure to check back here for additions to that list. (UPDATE: There's a better list here.)
What is the "value" of theatre? We need to figure out what it is that theatre does well and better than other art/entertainment forms. Then we need to figure out a positive way to describe those things to people who do not already identify themselves as theatregoers.
Theatre is local, and a group experience, and exchange does happen. Yes. And those are good examples because they are qualities that theatre excels at, even though they're not necessarily things you can't get elsewhere. Are those, then, the qualities that we can leverage into the concrete end-result we're hoping for - greater attendance? (Or is that the gold at the end of the rainbow? Is it even bigger? A sustainable model? I think that's another discussion.)
What does make theatre different, and, indeed, why WOULD anyone choose it over NetFlix? Is relevance the key? Obviously, we hope to make our art relevant to our potential audience members. So, we choose universal themes and/or write about current events. That's one advantage of theatre - it can be quick. But that's not unique, the news is quicker, so are radio talkshows. I don't think we can definitely prove that theatre is better at being relevant than books, movies, etc.
Relevance is important, but it also sounds like importance. I bet if you ask the "great unwashed masses" if theatre is "important" in the world, they'd say yes. If you asked them if they go, well, we know the answer. I think the symphony is important here in my hometown, but that motherfucker's about to go out of business, and it's at least in part because people like me don't go often enough.
What about form & content? When we talk about relevance, we're primarily talking about the content of the play and I'd like to avoid that a bit in this discussion. Certainly the content of our work has a great affect on ticket sales, but for the moment, we're searching for qualities that you can find in most - if not all - theatre, community or professional, big or small, straight or ... musical.
(At this point I have to tangent and say that it's quite possible there is an important split somewhere. I find my company's has very little in common with the latest Broadway smashtacular. At some point, we may wish to acknowledge that some of that stuff is in a different category than what we're working towards.)
So what do we sell (if we are going to go ahead admit that this is in part about selling the art)? What do we emphasize? Believe it or not, my company found a really great marketing company to give us some Clarity. Seriously, that's what the process is called. You can look them up on the web at www.youngisaac.com. So, we've spent a lot of time examining who we are and what we do and what we want our potential and current customers to do about it.
One lesson that Artie Isaac has emphasized is that we shouldn't hide who we are or try to trick the consumer. We can't act like our art isn't kind of like school or church sometimes. Yes, that turns some people off, but we're never going to win them as loyal customers by tricking them into showing up. It's much better to admit we're kind of like school and church, and realize that there are actually a lot of people who like school and church. If we can get all of those people in the house, we don't need the others. It's like the Republicans not worrying about the middle, and just focusing on turning-out all of their base. (And it's the opposite of John Kerry dressing up like a hunter and trying to pretend he's not a rich dude who loves his jet-ski."
We've learned things from Artie that have already been talked about on theatrenet in the context of this discussion. Here's a list.
This one is very specific to us, but not true of all theatre if you're talking about where the artists come from. Of course, if you're talking about the fact that it always happens in the room where you're sitting, it is true for all theatre, no matter what. In that way all theatre is locally grown. The fact that our art is locally grown is a strength. It makes us different, even from other theatres in the area.
The fact that our art is live and "risky" and not canned makes us different, even from the Broadway Series, and a lot live music. There's nothing between us and them.
Yes, that's a strength. We can't hide the fact that going to the theatre takes more effort than renting a DVD, but not everyone actually wants to sit at home. We need to sell to the people who WANT to leave the house.
This one is also not true of all theatre. I personally think that's too bad, but it's a personal preference. Maybe it should be more like this ...
Not quite the same as being live. You're in the room, so are the actors. There's an exchange of energy and contact. You're attitude and actions actually affect the performance in real time. And of course, so theatres make it easier to not-ignore the art by creating ways for people to connect with the artists.
There's tons of research, technical and anecdotal, that shows that people want to talk to each other at the theatre, that they want more time and forums to discuss the dhow with each other afterwards. People also want something to talk about later on. Call it cocktail party chatter. And theatre is novel, it gives you something new to discuss, a little bit of status.
Another way to chart some of this is here:
This is a diagram from one of our Young Isaac sessions. The kind of theatre I like goes somewhere in the top-left box, the one that says "Move Me". Not that people who prefer comforting entertainment don't want to be moved, but the further you get to the bottom of the chart, the more likely it is that they want to be manipulated into emotion response in a perfectly predictable way. Maybe they wanna cry or cheer, but they probably don't want to learn anything in the process.
Let me throw this out there as well. Anne Bogart says she has only one original idea, and it's this: People need 7 things from art - Empathy, Spectacle, Participation, Ritual, Entertainment, Magic, and Learning. Of those, I'd say that theatre does participation, ritual, and magic better than just about anything else.
Certain church has it all over us for ritual, but we're not competing with church, right? Magic is just that, a man becomes a dog, becomes a woman, becomes a tree. A box becomes a chair, a table, a spaceship. You can't really do that in movies, it's too hard to escape verisimilitude. In the theatre we're almost always doing magic.
I think we just discussed participation, didn't we. If you're in the room, you're a part of it. You can't help it. Watching DVDs or movies, or even live music, you can turn away and ignore it. I suppose you could try to ignore the play in front of you, but you might get kicked out if you distract others.
So, theatre - here & now, community experience, participation, magic all the time, gets you out of the house. Awesome. Now, how do we talk about this? How do we communicate this? Bumper stickers?
Ben Cameron (Remember him?) does has some ideas on this as well.
One theatre I know has distilled its three primary values into three talking points, capturing them small cards wallet sized cards that can be easily pulled out mid conversation when precise verbiage is needed and precise supporting facts and figures are warranted. Every Board member has one. It clearly distills the value that they want to convey, and together, by singing the same songs in the same language, by consistently using the same three "key messages" as media trainers would say, the entire organization is working to build critical consciousness in its community. Let's carry it further: if we really want to make that difference, it's time to make those cards not only for every Board member, but for every actor. Every technician, every administrator, every custodian in our employ. No matter what the media does or doesn't do for us, we have the power to build the consciousness from the bottom up.
Assume he's talking about "every actor. Every technician, every administrator, every custodian" everywhere in every theatre. Does the theatre as a whole have a mission? What is it? Is it the something we can all get behind?
You know who has a similar problem? Democrats. Oh yes, oh yes. For a really fantastic explanation of how democrats fail to "frame their ideas" read some George Lakoff. The general idea is that Democrats (and theatre-people) need to find a way of describing their vision of the world (and/or their art) in a way that is exciting and easily understood. Republicans sound like their ideas are simple, but (if you're talking about real Republicans) they're not. It's just that a lot of very smart people have spent a lot of time and effort to figure out how to distill their complicated ideas into simple, direct, passionate statements of values. It wouldn't hurt for a bunch of theatre people to do the same. (If only we could find a group of smart, engaged people who share ideas about theatre with each other in public on a regular basis. Hey! What just a darn minute ...)
I don't think I have any ideas of how to spread this gospel of the theatre that are any better than Ben's. I really think it's a matter of repeating it over and over and over. To each other, to other people, to our audiences. We need to equip our audiences with the words and the way to spread this message for us. I've heard plenty of true blue theatre lovers sputter out, "There's just something about being there ..." Which isn't wrong, it's just ineffective.
All together now! Theatre is a communal experience that only happens here & now, that enables participation, that is magic all the time, and that gets you out of the house.
Kind of a clumsy slogan.
Thoughts? Ideas? To the comment-mobile!
This is the end of the post for now. We'll continue to delve into this further all together across all these blogs today and in the days to come.
As always, thank you for visiting. I can't wait to see what the others are writing.
Comments (13)
There's something else that kicks ass about theatre, that I was reminded of tonight at an Adam Rapp play; Red Light Winter (which was extraordinary, top to tail). For the cost of abut a 5 minute wait I got to meet and thank each one of the actors and the director that moved me tonight. Priceless.
Can't do that with Johnny Depp.
Posted by Simon | March 19, 2008 3:12 AM
Posted on March 19, 2008 03:12
" I really think it's a matter of repeating it over and over and over. To each other, to other people, to our audiences. We need to equip our audiences with the words and the way to spread this message for us."
I couldn't agree more with this statement. This is a foundational marketing principle – repeat, repeat, repeat.
I think this collective blogging experiment is doing a great job of kick-starting the repeat cycle. And if we can identify a common value – perhaps something that pops up across several posts on several different blogs – we can leverage that insight in our repeat mechanism.
Just great. Genius.
BTW. I'm going to print up some three-point cards for the Praxis Theatre team. Genius.
Posted by Ian Mackenzie | March 19, 2008 12:08 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 12:08
Oops. "Genius" is a strong word. I only meant to use it once.
Posted by Ian Mackenzie | March 19, 2008 12:10 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 12:10
http://devilvet.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-value-of-theater.html
Posted by devilvet | March 19, 2008 12:33 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 12:33
After reading everybody's posts I can't get my mind to slow down! Just so glad you started this discussion!
Anyway, I'm starting to feel like part of the problem is me, not as a Theatre Person, but as an Actor. I mean, if I was thinking about the Value of Theatre when I was considering whether or not to accept a role, I think my resume would be a lot smaller. I also think I would be a lot less cranky. Why do some of us actors do the some of the crap shows we do, when we could be doing shows we value? There is such an actor culture of get the role, any role and do it and shut up about it. But why? You're right. Broadway isn't necessarily what we're working towards. I think, as an actor, I've got a lot of thinking to do about quality vs. quantity.
Great stuff, Matt. Thanks!
Posted by Betsy | March 19, 2008 1:53 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 13:53
Your dismissal of "There's just something about being there ..." as "ineffective" might be the beginning of one answer to one question you pose. That "something," that experience is everything. Starbucks did no marketing in the early days, but due to the experience it's patrons had when they visited, it grew by word of mouth. Target does marketing, but the reason I have an extreme fondness for the store is not their marketing, it's the experience, that "something," of being inside the Target.
Also, in my opinion, theatre isn't going up against Netflix or tv or movies. The main thing theatre can do to help itself to is make the "something," the experience, amazing.
Posted by Mark Baratelli | March 19, 2008 10:22 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 22:22
Thank you for this. It is an important discussion that should continue and continue. I'd love to be a part of the conversation. Even though Broadway isn't the kind of theatre that is valued in an artitic way in some circles, it is an entry point in bringing larger groups to the theatre experience as a whole, and by extension means they are more likely to explore beyond their theatre safety zone. The 7 year old at Mary Poppins today will be the 22 year old revolutionary at The Flea tomorrow.
Posted by BwayMag | March 21, 2008 3:28 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 03:28
Nice !
My contribution is up now.
Sorry it was late !
Posted by Dorothy | March 21, 2008 4:44 AM
Posted on March 21, 2008 04:44
Good work, sir. It's been a difficult but stimulating pleasure reading everyone's take on the subject, and your post inspired me enough to weigh in as well.
Posted by Nick | March 23, 2008 3:01 PM
Posted on March 23, 2008 15:01
The connection of actor to actor and audience member to audience member, and most importantly, actor to audience member, cannot be duplicated at home or at Regal Cinemas. The emotions are never as strong as they are in the theatre, the connection never as solid. When a performance, script and direction are absolutely united in quality and focus, those emotional moments are unforgettable -- we ARE there; we ARE the characters. The singularity of a performance (never to be exactly the same as another) transforms us from observer to participant. As I tell my students, when an audience member leaves a theatre-going experience exhausted from the emotional rollercoaster he/she has just been on (yet only sat in a chair for two hours), the satisfaction is unmatched by any TV viewing experience. We want to go on a vicarious journey, and the theatre offers us the ability to travel as the characters in an intimate portrait of ourselves, if only metaphorically.
Posted by Robert Dutton | March 23, 2008 8:06 PM
Posted on March 23, 2008 20:06
Theatre should not be sole preserve of the professional artist. It has value for all who want to get involved. It allows us rare space to play and connect. When we watch and empathise with an actor we use neurons which mirror the feelings and physical actions of the player. We develop the socialising tools of the brain.
Theatre is more than plays and stages. Free it from the definitions of the career professionals. Lastly true theatre should not be a commodity to be bought and sold. It's a moment, emotional, fun. When it turns into a ticket or a script or a still image, it dies.
Posted by Jonathan Petherbridge | March 27, 2008 1:43 PM
Posted on March 27, 2008 13:43
Bumper sticker?
"Move me (into Available Light)."
or
"Available? Move me now."
or
"Avail me."
Posted by Artie Isaac | April 20, 2008 9:05 AM
Posted on April 20, 2008 09:05
I think I like 'You can't do theatre at home' the most out of all of the points that you have listed.
I've enjoyed flipping through these think tank articles on the value of theater. Thanks!
Posted by Dan Schreck | May 20, 2008 10:19 PM
Posted on May 20, 2008 22:19